Court Opinion

ID: 9700898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:52:57.156053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:15.796462
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The evidence of Eugene Spruill’s guilt is overwhelming. Two eyewitnesses, who were friends of the defendant, testified to the strangling of the victim by Spruill while the victim was tied to a chair. Ten other witnesses supported this proposition of guilt. No witnesses testified on behalf of the defendant as to his innocence.
Balancing this evidence against the unfortunate slip of the tongue by a witness that he had “buried a couple of bodies for him (defendant)”, I find the “error” to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially so in view of the fact that the judge, in his charge to the jury, stated: “The fact that a person commits a previous crime or is involved in criminal activity does not mean that he committed the crime for which he stands charged. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Eugene Spruill murdered Walter Turner on May 22, 1972.” The majority opinion has failed to use this “balancing of evidence versus the ‘error’ ” test.
All too often some people confuse a fair trial with a perfect trial. We only guarantee a defendant a fair trial— not a perfect trial. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a perfect trial. The judgment of sentence should be affirmed.