Court Opinion

ID: 9675688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:02:16.656959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:37.242074
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. For the first time I am dissenting solely upon the ground that I do not find the testimony of a witness to constitute substantial evidence. Without the testimony of the widow there would only be one possibility óf the appellant being connected in any way to this crime. Other than the widow’s testimony, one witness, an expert from Washington, D.C., stated that one Negroid hair was found about the decedent’s clothing. According to the expert, the 20 characteristics found in the hair were the same as the characteristics found in appellant’s hair. There were more than a dozen Caucasian hairs found about the decedent’s clothing but none of them were identified. The expert from Washington admitted he could not positively identify appellant by hair like he could fingerprints. He stated: Okay. To begin with I don’t want to mislead anyone. A hair is not like a fingerprint. In other words, I can’t say that the hair from those pants came from Mr. Pitts to the exclusion of everyone else. His report further states: It is pointed out that hair comparisons do not constitute a basis for positive personal identification. Speaking of fingerprints, it is most interesting that none of appellant’s fingerprints were found in or around the residence nor in or around the vehicle where the victim was found although more than 50 sets of latent fingerprints were found. The widow indicated her attacker discarded the gloves he was wearing before he left her house. Turning to the testimony of the widow, her statement was that she arrived home at 6:00 p.m. when the house was already dark. She explained that she could not see her husband and stated: And, it was dark or I couldn’t see anything and I called out his name. She testified that as the door moved inward as she opened it a man stepped from behind the door and told her to come on in. The exhibits reveal that this door opens flush with the wall (Exhibit No. 23). In other words, the door would only open to 90 degrees. It would be impossible for anyone to be behind the door. I recognize a person could have been standing in front of the door but not behind it. Although it was dark and the intruder wore a mask covering everything but his eyes, the witness stated: Yes. When we came in — I looked at him. He said, don’t look at me. About the same time she stated to the intruder: It’s you, isn’t it, Gene? It is difficult for me to believe that any person could identify a black man in a dark house while he was wearing a mask except over his eyes. This was the sole identification witness against the appellant. The witness further stated the intruder remained there about 20 minutes. Since she arrived exactly at 6:00 p.m., this would mean it was 6:20 when the intruder left in the company of her husband. After the intruder left, the witness stated she worked her way to the patio door, while still bound hand and foot, and managed to open the lock with her nose. In looking at the photographs it appears that the lock is between the handle which opens the sliding glass door and the door jamb. It appears there are approximately three inches between the handle and the jamb. Therefore, it would take a rather long nose to reach into this position and unlock the sliding glass door. After this the witness allegedly slid or scooted across the lawn to a gate which also had a lock on it. The witness apparently told different stories about how this gate was opened. At one point she stated: With my nose I unhooked the thing, you know, where it hooks. Defense Exhibit No. 15 is a picture of the latch the witness just described as having opened with her nose. The top part of the latch, which is the part that would have to be pushed up, is 65-1/2 inches from the ground. That would be at least as high as this witness’ head. At any rate, the witness stated she continued to scoot or crawl to a neighbor’s house where she finally gained admission. The neighbor testified her hands and feet were tied but that her clothing did not appear to be soiled or wet. There was snow on the ground and it had been raining. The witness also was able to get the packing out of her mouth without removing the portion of the gag which held the material in her mouth. Apparently this is so because she still had the piece around her mouth but no material in her mouth when she arrived at the neighbor’s house. A disinterested witness, Mrs. Stanley, testified that the decedent’s Land Cruiser was parked on Arlington Drive, a considerable distance from the decedent’s home, by 6:07 p.m. on the date of his disappearance. The Land Cruiser was parked in front of the house next door to the witness’s, and she saw two men standing by the vehicle at the time she turned into her driveway. She was of the opinion these were white men. This witness’s friend came up immediately behind her and the two of them went to Skaggs Drug Store and made a purchase. When they left the drug store, the ticket tape was clocked as 6:35 p.m. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that the witness is mistaken in her statement that the vehicle bearing the decedent’s body was parked next door to her house sometime before 6:07 p.m. This witness underwent hypnosis in order to be questioned about the time of day the decedent’s vehicle was seen by her. Under hypnosis she stated the time was 6:07 p.m. There was another witness who stated he saw the Land Cruiser, in which decedent’s body was discovered, pull up to the Arlington Drive address about 6:30 p.m. He further stated that two men got out and ran past Mrs. Stanley’s house toward the field behind it. He too was of the opinion that the men were white. Both the young witness and his mother discussed matters in detail and came to the firm conclusion that the vehicle had been parked before 6:30 p.m. The Land Cruiser in which the decedent’s body was found was not moved from the spot where it was parked until the police recovered it the following morning. With three or four completely disinterested witnesses testifying the vehicle bearing the decedent’s body was parked on Arlington Drive soon after 6:00 p.m. there is no reasonable possibility of it having left the decedent’s residence after 6:20 p.m. At least three of the four witnesses thought the two men they observed either around the vehicle or running from it were white. This testimony cannot be reconciled with that of the widow. In fact, during the time the intruder was in the house the widow claims to have been in possession of his gun on at least two occasions. On one of these occasions she threw the gun into a bedroom. Also, when she was asked to lie down in the floor, the shotgun was alongside her. I cannot understand why she did not attempt to use one of these guns at some time during the episode. The widow had been harassed by Pitts in the past, and it is evident from the record that she had no use for him. I think the hair which supports this conviction is not strong enough to bear the weight of the burden of the sentence of life without parole. There is nothing else upon which this verdict could stand. I am of the opinion that the facts in this case are so weak that they cannot uphold the verdict pronounced by the jury; therefore, I would reverse this conviction.