Court Opinion

ID: 9519256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:12:29.150008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:11.393122
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The basis of the majority opinion seems to be that the trial court erroneously directed a verdict of acquittal as to co-defendant Compton. However, the trial court’s action in that regard is not an issue in this appeal. Following the acquittal of co-defendant Compton it remained for the jury to try defendant on the evidence presented. As the majority correctly noted, from the evidence presented it could have found the defendant either guilty or innocent. They found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. That verdict finds ample support in the record. It is of no consequence that co-defendant Compton and his counsel were no longer at the counsel table following the trial court’s action in directing an acquittal of Compton. The case against defendant was the same and defendant’s defenses remained the same. Upon retrial of this case the same situation will be present as that with which defendant was confronted following the directed verdict of acquittal as to Compton. Neither co-defendant Compton nor his counsel will be present at the counsel table. The evidence surrounding the fighting and the death of decedent, including Compton’s participation, will be the same. Defendant will be able to show, or attempt to show, that decedent met his death by means other than by defendant’s actions and blows. The jury will consider the same evidence as before. To say that the defendant was prejudiced because co-defendant Compton was acquitted and departed during the course of the trial ascribes to the jury a Simple Simon character that is not demonstrably present in the record. They tried defendant’s case in isolation and reached a result that even the majority concedes was plausible under the evidence. It is a burden upon judicial economy to retry this case. I also disagree with the majority in regard to the admission of defendant’s boots into evidence. The presence of blood on the boots was relevant and probative. Even though Compton’s boots were likewise bloodstained it would not constitute error to admit only defendant’s boots. Defendant had the opportunity to explain the presence of the bloodstains and to show the presence of blood on the boots of others, including those of Compton. I would affirm.