Court Opinion

ID: 9618193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:08:44.660838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:18.297147
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in this decision. It appears from the record before this Court that the prosecution’s theory was that insofar as appellant was the only person found in the vehicle after the collision, he must have been the vehicle driver. When one views State’s Exhibit No. 3, which depicts appellant’s pinned position on the passenger’s side of the vehicle with his head stuck through the windshield and his jacket alongside his right arm, it should be obvious that appellant had to be the passenger. Considering that the point of impact was *216on the right front of the GMC Jimmy Pickup, there was absolutely no way possible for appellant to have been under the steering wheel.
State’s Exhibit No. 19 depicts the door on the driver's side open and the steering wheel bent at both the top and the bottom with blood splattered on the ceiling above the steering wheel, which causes it to become even more obvious that someone else must have been under the steering wheel. Another of the State’s exhibits, depicted by a 35 mm slide, shows a second jacket lying between the driver’s and the passenger’s seat. Unless appellant was in the habit of wearing two jackets, the second jacket seems to further reveal that someone else was with him in the pickup.
Because the evidence was either not viewed with common sense, or the jury was convinced by the prosecution’s theory and defense counsel’s failure to challenge that theory, the jury was left to conclude that appellant was the driver. It appears elementary, without the conclusions reached by reconstructionist Mr. Matheson, that appellant could not possibly have been the pickup driver.
Insofar as defense counsel challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in his motion for new trial, we are in the position to evaluate that sufficiency. Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985). In Spuehler, this Court stated the test for sufficiency as follows:
In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires a reviewing court to determine ‘Whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’
As I view the evidence presented to the jury, viewed most favorable to the prosecution, the test of Spuehler was not met. Therefore, it is my opinion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain this conviction.
The evidence provided at the hearing on the motion for new trial is even more convincing that this appellant should be entitled to at least a new trial. Clearly, part of the evidence met the newly discovered evidence requirements. The Security Guard at the Castle Club was clearly unavailable to testify at the trial, due to his having suffered a stroke. His testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial reveals that at the time of trial he was in the hospital and was not aware that appellant was being put to trial. His testimony placed two persons in the vehicle, when it left the parking area. Also, as pointed out in the majority opinion, the admission of the blood alcohol test results was inadmissible, by the State’s own evidence.
I concur in the reversal of this conviction, but I would go even further and direct that the information should be dismissed. Nonetheless, I will concur with my colleague and remand it for a new trial.