Court Opinion

ID: 9740431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:35:23.478848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.846513
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
Jackson, J.
— I dissent from the majority opinion herein for the reason that appellant’s motion for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law, was well taken and should have been sustained.
Despite the fact that the deceased was attended by a number of physicians during her illness there was not a single one of them who testified that she was suffering from arsenic poisoning, nor in fact is there any direct evidence that she died of such poison. Dr. Steussey testified that in his opinion, based on his post-mortem examination, there was no evidence that Lois Byrd died of natural causes or of a disease. Dr. Forney, over objection of appellant, testified that there was a sufficient quantity of arsenic, found in the tissues and specimens (obtained from the body of Lois Byrd) to cause death.
*461Thus, we are confronted with the question, did she die of poison, of the flu her mother thought she had, or did she die of the massive (400,000) units of pencillin, one-half grain of streptomycin and three sulpha drugs administered to her without a test to determine if she was allergic thereto? The doctor testified concerning the above as follows:
“Q. What about these 400,000 units you gave her?
“A. If she was sensitive to it, it could destroy her.”
The doctor further testified that if Lois Byrd was allergic to penicillin it would be known “within five or ten minutes or from five to ten days, depending on whether it was immediate.” The record discloses the patient received the penicillin on March 1, 1961, and died March 12,1961.
The State, in its brief and oral argument, made much of the fact, and the majority opinion stresses that, as stated in the majority opinion, “[o]n one occasion the defendant walked nine or ten blocks through deep snow from his house to the home of the wife’s parents carrying prepared orange juice in a glass jar. Within a few minutes after the deceased drank some of this orange juice she vomited and became worse, and, when she said she didn’t want it, the defendant took it away with him.” The State and the majority opinion would leave the inference the appellant was so determined to accomplish his wife’s death that he would wade snow and brave all elements to accomplish that purpose. Let’s look at the record to see what actually happened then, this being the evidence of the mother of Lois Byrd testifying as a witness for the State of Indiana, “[i]t was a bad snowy day and Warren walked over. She called him and *462asked him to bring her false teeth and some, orange juice and he came over and stayed for dinner. He gave her a glass of orange juice, but it didn’t stay down and she said T shouldn’t have drank that Donald Duck orange juice.’ I told Warren and he said: ‘I’ll take this back if she doesn’t want it’ and he took it away with him.”
The majority opinion also stresses the fact that a bottle of ant killer, containing a percentage of arsenic, was found behind the furnace in appellant’s home. There is no evidence in the record as to how such bottle came to be placed where found or who placed it there.
Reference is made to testimony concerning appellant’s refusal to take a lie detector test on advice of counsel. Such reference, at the trial and here,., is . inappropriate.
If the jury, was convinced that Lois Byrd died of arsenic poisoning we are- then confronted with the question, who administered the arsenic to Lois Byrd that caused her death? The burden was upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant did, and the jury evidently found that there was sufficient evidence, as a verdict of first degree murder was returned.
The case comes to this Court upon the record. The appellant insists there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and, although this Court cannot weigh the evidence in arriving at its conclusion, if it finds there is no evidence contained in the record to sustain the verdict and judgment, then.it not only has the power and authority, but it becomes its solemn duty to say so and reverse the judgment. Osbon v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 413, 13 N. E. 2d 223.
*463In the case' at bar thé appellant took the stand in his own behalf and denied poisoning his wife; .the State failed to prove that. the Dixie Cup in which the malted milk was contained was free from poison at the time it was delivered to the appellant for the use of the deceased. It is not shown in the record that the Dixie Cup in which the malted milk was contained, and from which the deceased is alleged to have drunk, is the same cup about which Dr.. Forney testified. The record discloses two paper cups were the subject of the toxicologist's analysis, but neither was identified with the appellant nor were they introduced in evidence. Certainly that burden of proof must be required of the State.
" If mere opportunity to murder is sufficient to convict then the life and liberty of many innocent people may be easily sacrificed. The law requires more than mere opportunity. It requires evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It will not permit a mere possibility because of opportunity to take life or liberty. It does not require direct evidence, but if not direct, then the circumstantial, evidence must be such as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Osbon v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 413, 424, 13 N. E. 2d 223.
There is no motive disclosed by the record for the appellant to have poisoned his wife. On the contrary the record discloses, ’ without' dispute, a very satisfactory marital relationship existed between appellant and the deceased, the uncontradicted evidence being that they displayed great affection • for each other.
This Court has said in the case of Schusler v. The State (1868), 29 Ind. 394, 395:
' “. . . That the deceased, one /o/m Frederick; came to his death by violence is' cónclusivély *464shown; that the death was caused by the appellant is attempted to be established by circumstantial evidence. To sustain such a conviction, the facts proved must be susceptible of explanation upon no reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the person charged. Although the mysterious crime cannot be solved from the evidence, except upon the supposition of the defendant’s guilt, still a conviction cannot follow. The life or liberty of a person cannot be le-galy sacrificed on the ground that only by regarding him as guilty an explanation is afforded of the perpetration of a proved offense. . . .”
In the instant case there is a total lack of evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment.
“____[A]nd when it is thus found that there is not in the record evidence to sustain the finding of the jury and judgment of the court the cause should be reversed.” Osbon v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 413, 428, 13 N. E. 2d 223.
It is only too apparent that the conviction of appellant was obtained and is here being affirmed on. assumption, inference and opportunity.
The judgment should be reversed with instructions to grant the motion for a new trial.
Bobbitt, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 185 N. E. 2d 422.