Court Opinion

ID: 9542660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:04.014593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:36.490307
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the convietion must be reversed because of trial error, but dissent to the remand for new trial.
Appellant visited the vietim at her home on September 11, 1986. She drove there in a white Ford and parked it in front of the victim's house. She arrived at about 8:80 and left around 5:00. Sometime later the body of the victim was found under a bridge in the area. There were broken items and blood in the victim's house indicating an attack had occurred there. Appellant's fingerprint was found on a brown glass in the house and on a bottle of shampoo. Shampoo had been used to attempt to remove blood stains from a carpet. At about 7:00 appellant appeared at a tavern. She had been perspiring and appeared wet, appeared nervous, and lied about where she had been that day.
One of the State's witnesses testified that he saw a woman on the bridge that evening and spoke to her, and had picked appellant's picture from an array as that woman. However, at trial he was unable to identify appellant as the woman on the bridge. Appellant's car was searched and nothing was discovered which would indicate that it had been used to transport the victim. Appellant testified that she visited the victim, smoked a cigarette, drank something, and took the victim's garbage out in a trash bag because the victim had a sore foot.
The theory of the prosecution was that appellant beat the victim at her home, rushed to give her husband some money at a tavern, and dumped the body off of the Georgetown bridge. In my opinion, that theory and the conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. I would therefore order that appellant be acquitted.