Opinion ID: 1898380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: Did the court's instruction on the Gracco shooting unfairly characterize defendant's exculpatory evidence as a red herring?

Text: In a very brief portion of its charge to the jury, the court characterized the jury's responsibility as to keep your eye right on the ball. It instructed the jury: There are a few red herrings in this case. You know what I mean. Somebody drug [sic] a little something in front of you to get you off the scent.    You know, we get into that Gracco thing what not. It seemed, however, to be telling the jury to concentrate on what the State's burden is and what the State's burden is not. In other words, the State did not have to prove that the defendant had committed the Gracco shooting. It is true that ballistics evidence showed that Gracco was the third and final person shot with the gun used in the Carmichael and Compton shootings and that that was the strongest exculpatory evidence presented by the defense. But it is equally true that the State sought to prove that defendant could have been the perpetrator of the Gracco shooting in light of the evidence that he had changed his coat and gone back out on the night in question, albeit his motive for committing a third robbery would be somewhat unreasonable. The court attempted to cure the charge and regretted the use of the expression, but felt on the whole that it had not prejudiced the jury. We agree.