Court Opinion

ID: 9698309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:47:15.841278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:40.064782
License: Public Domain

Orth, J.,
dissenting:
I am unable to conclude, as does the majority, that the judgment of the lower court on the evidence before it was clearly erroneous. With respect to appellant, rational references from the evidence showed more than his mere presence at the scene. One witness saw two boys at the door of the house and it seemed to her that they were trying to break in. The wood on the door was shown to be “chipped off” and “busted loose” at the lock. The occupant of the premises heard banging at the front door and when he got out of bed, went downstairs and opened the door, there was appellant about 10 yards away. Going to the back door, he saw another boy in his backyard. Promptly responding to the call of the witness who saw the boys at his front door, two officers observed appellant and the boy seen by the occupant in his backyard walking together from the alley back of the premises. Appellant’s companion had two screwdrivers in Ms possession. There was no evidence that any other boys were present during these happenings.
There is no war between the clearly erroneous rule and common sense. I think that the court as the trier of fact, *196could rationally infer from the evidence adduced that appellant was one of the boys seen at the front door and that the boy with him when he was apprehended was the other. Thus, the court was not clearly wrong in determining that appellant attempted to break the home as charged. I would affirm the judgment.