Opinion ID: 202981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Condition of the Fire Scene During the Jury View

Text: Higgins also testified that the state had misled the jury during its view of the fire scene by not placing boxes precisely where they had been on the night of the fire. Higgins contended, based on his observation of smoke shadows, i.e. clean spots on the otherwise soot-covered walls and floor, that boxes of cooking oil were stacked three high in the narrow passage between a sandwich display case and a fish cooler, leaving only about four and a half inches between the boxes and the case. He insisted that, if these boxes had been present during the jury view, the jury would have understood that the state's theory of how Peter Dugas committed arson could not possibly be correct. He asserted that it was physically impossible for Dugas to have taken the path within the store the state claimed he took the night of the fire. However, Wood explained at the evidentiary hearing that even with the boxes stacked as Higgins claims, passing between the boxes and the cooler would still not be physically impossible. Wood described the fish cooler as tapered from the base up to the top as most deli coolers are so the passage was much narrower at the floor than at waist height. Wood testified: Certainly you could put your foot in that space between the box and the fish cooler and then fit your upper body through the upper portion. At trial, Dugas was questioned about whether he could have fit through this narrow opening between the fish cooler and the display case. He answered, rather equivocally, Not very well. The prosecutor asked, And were there things in the way? Dugas responded, Yeah, there's a whole bunch of oil boxes there . . . Dugas was even asked by the prosecutor if the boxes were still where they had been on the night of the fire. Dugas responded, I don't remember. Mostly everything is still there. I know my dad took a box of oil out of there at some point but Then the prosecutor asked again, Could you have squeezed through there if you wanted? Dugas again replied, Not very easily. It's a tight space and I'm not a small guy. As the district court noted, this exchange illustrates that the jury already had before it the issue of whether the passageway between the cooler and the display case was too narrow for Dugas to pass through. Even when asked directly, Dugas never asserted that passing through with the boxes in place would have been physically impossible. Weighing Higgins's assertions regarding the location of the boxes against this testimony by Wood and Dugas, the district court concluded: If Higgins's opinion about the stacked boxes had been available to present at trial, it might have bolstered Dugas's testimony that he could not have easily squeezed through that space, assuming Dugas would agree that the boxes were stacked as Higgins suggests. Higgins's opinion, even if it were accepted as true, however, does not prove that the state's theory was impossible. As best, it is cumulative of Dugas's own testimony that he could not have fit through that area easily or very well. As such, Higgins's opinion does little, if anything, to undermine confidence in the jury's verdict. Dugas V, slip op. at 37. There is no clear error in this finding.