Opinion ID: 1657019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grim was in the house while the victim was alive

Text: To prove first degree burglary in this case, the State must present evidence sufficient to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Grim was inside Ms. Bradford's house while she was there and still alive. Maj. Op. at 414. The majority affirms the submissibility of the State's case on the following reasoning: [T]he fact that the print is in Ms. Bradford's blood supports the conclusion that Mr. Grim participated in the murder. If Mr. Grim was in the house while Ms. Bradford was being stabbed to death, then Mr. Grim was in the house while Ms. Bradford was in the house. Maj.Op. at 415. Thus, once the majority's argument for submitting the murder charge is accepted, the burglary charge is submissible a fortiori. In my view, the burglary charge is not submissible because the State's evidence shows no more than that Grim was in the victim's house after her death. [4] As noted, the only piece of evidence linking Grim to any of the crimes charged is the bloody thumbprint. And, as noted, a fingerprint cannot be left in dried blood. Therefore, given the evidence, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the State, one can conclude that Grim was in the victim's house at some point in time after she was killed and before the blood dried, a period which may have been as long as twenty-four hours. The evidence does not show, however, when Grim arrived or when he left. Nor does it provide any basis for inferring that, because he was there after she was killed he must have been there while she was being killed. We just don't know. Worse, we have no basis from which to reasonably deduce the answer. Again, the majority confuses an inference, that which is logically drawn from the evidence, with a possibility that is not inconsistent with the evidence. Again, given that we may conclude only that Grim was in the house after Ms. Bradford's murder, two contradictory explanations arise: first, that Grim was there when she was killed, and second, that he came along after she was killed. This is not the first time this Court has faced such a situation and, prior to today, we have recognized that when the evidence is no more consistent with guilt than it is with innocence, reasonable doubt exists as a matter of law and the case may not go to the jury. State v. Roberts, 709 S.W.2d 857, 862 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 946, 107 S.Ct. 427, 93 L.Ed.2d 378 (1986); State v. Prier, 634 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Black, 611 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Mo.App.1980). In fact, the court of appeals has expressly stated that this rule is a necessary incident to the constitutional standard in Jackson. State v. Gardner, 737 S.W.2d 519, 521 (Mo. App.1987) (federal constitutional requirement of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt dictates the rule in the Black case take precedence over the usual [ Dulany ] standard of review in appeals alleging insufficient evidence). I agree. Therefore, I would hold that the State's evidence in this case provides no basis for finding that Grim was in Ms. Bradford's house while she was alive, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible, given the evidence, that he was. It is just as possible, on the basis of the evidence, that he was not. Such a case cannot, constitutionally, go to the jury if the due process guaranties of the constitution are to be given their historic meaning. III. No one likes an unsolved crime; no one likes to see a defendant acquitted when he may have done it. Common sense may point to Grim; evidence beyond a reasonable doubt does not. This Court's duty is to ensure that criminal convictions are based on constitutionally sufficient evidenceevidence from which guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may be found. When this duty rests too heavily, there is comfort in the knowledge that we are not the first to bear it. We have carefully analyzed all the [evidence] and, while it may be said that it is calculated to arouse a suspicion of guilt of this defendant, yet suspicions or even strong probabilities of guilt do not authorize a conviction. Giving every circumstance its full force, ... it falls far short of ... [that] upon which the citizen should be deprived of his liberty. The law should be universal in its application; it should be applied to the humble and the exalted alike. This defendant may be guilty, but the facts as disclosed by the record in this cause fail to show it. If there was any substantial evidence upon which to base this verdict, it would not be disturbed; but, in view of the insufficiency of the testimony to authorize this conviction, we must decline to sanction it. State v. Scott, 177 Mo. 665, 76 S.W. 950, 952 (1903). The majority frets that this dissent weighs the evidence and would have this Court sit as a super jury. I regret that the majority so misunderstands what I say. Our job is not to act as a super jury, but neither is it our job to abandon to the jury our responsibilities as guardians of the law. Every appellate court addressing an attack on the submissibility of a criminal case bears the responsibility of deciding whether the State has presented sufficient evidence from which the jury can find all of the elements of the crime on the basis of the facts presented, not speculation or emotion. This appellate responsibility is not one of weighing the evidence anew as a jury, but of making sure that the jury's deliberations comport with due process. Every case does not go to a jury; sometimes the State fails to make its case. Respectfully, submissibility review is an appellate court's only opportunity to safeguard this requirement of the Constitution. To abandon this role to the jury is not only to make the jury the final arbiter of the facts, which it is, but also of the law, which it is not. Our society long ago rested its faith in a system that declares it far better to let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent one. It is this commitment to the rule of law that separates us from the barbarians. I respectfully dissent.