Opinion ID: 1409199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence supporting convictions

Text: When the majority claims that absent the prior statements there was no substantive evidence (except Steven P.'s) to support the jury's verdict, one wonders if the drafter of the opinion read the transcript. Herewith is a summary of what the state established by direct testimony given in court by the witnesses: Bill C. testified that the defendant was at the defendant's home with the boys on the night of the alleged offenses, and at that time the boys drank the defendant's liquor and smoked marijuana, although in fairness Bill also testified (inconsistently with his prior statement) the defendant was in another room when the marijuana was smoked. Orville R.'s direct in-court testimony also placed the defendant at the scene with the boys, indicated that the defendant provided them with alcohol, that the boys then took up a collection of funds with which the defendant went out to buy them beer, verified the presence and use of marijuana, and that Steve, Bill and the defendant smoked it together. Michael S. testified in court that the defendant was at his home with the boys at the time of the alleged offenses. Michael also indicated that marijuana was smoked at that time, that two joints of marijuana were rolled and passed around, that the defendant handled the joints and puffed from the first one. Michael further testified that the defendant got a bottle of alcohol from the rear bedroom, brought it into the living room and provided it to the boys. He also testified that the defendant went out and got three cases of beer. If this isn't direct, substantive evidence, what is? Real life isn't like Perry Mason where someone in the courtroom actually jumps up and confesses. This was solid, substantive evidence, especially when considered together with Steven P.'s testimony. Perhaps the most vehement point of this dissent, however, is that even the majority acknowledges that Steven P. testified in court that the delivery was made to him by the defendant. That evidence was unrefuted and yet the conviction for delivery to Steven P. was also reversed. All the majority seems to rely upon in reversing is that the cumulative effect of (1) a discussion the judge had with the juvenile witnesses out of the presence of the jury, (2) the use of prior inconsistent statements, and (3) the prosecutor's comments concerning the witnesses' credibility denied the appellant his constitutional right to a fair trial and constituted plain error. Furthermore, Steven P. testified that, after receiving the marijuana from the defendant, he (Steven P.) handed it to Bill C. At the close of the state's evidence the court refused the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the basis that this testimony of Steven P. alone would support a constructive delivery to Bill C.