Court Opinion

ID: 9520168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:32:25.009172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:37.590148
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Hunter, J.
— I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. As the majority has pointed out, the major inquiry in cases such as this is whether the defendant was denied his right to a fair trial. In this case, defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment primarily on the testimony of one eyewitness. No other witnesses to the murder testified, and defendant presented an alibi defense. I believe that in failing to disclose to the defendant evidence concerning two other alleged eyewitnesses, the state denied him a fair trial.
The one eyewitness who did testify, Miss Barbara McBride, stated that she could identify the defendant as the murderer of David Turner even though it had been a dark night and she had been standing on a porch across the street from where the crime took place. She specifically named two other men standing on the porch with her at that time. Neither of these men testified at the trial. McBride’s credibility was attacked by the defense and it was shown that she had not volunteered her testimony until four months after the murder.
At the post-conviction hearing, it was brought out that there was conflicting testimony from both of the other alleged eyewitnesses. One witness, Charles Thomas, had given an oral statement to the police on the night of the murder. He stated at that time that it was too dark for him to identify the murderer. This statement contradicted McBride’s testimony as to the amount of light at the scene of the crime.
Although there is conflicting evidence as to whether defendant’s counsel ever saw a copy of Thomas’s statement, which allegedly was part of the police officer’s notes taken at the scene of the crime and later given to the defendant, it is clear that Thomas did not testify at trial. Police officers did testify at length as to their attempts to find Thomas but did *625not refer to any statements he may have made. This emphasis on the attempts to find Thomas, without any reference to the fact that he had already given an oral statement, created the impression that the state was still looking for Thomas because he had not yet given any statement and that he probably would be able to corroborate McBride’s testimony.
However, even more significant additional information was brought out at the post-conviction hearing about the 'other' alleged eyewitness, Andrew White. The record shows that White’s attorney had talked to White. in prison before defendant’s original trial. The attorney offered White a reduced sentence in return for testimony White could give about the Turner murder case. White clearly stated to the attorney that he was not present at the scene of the Turner murder because he had been in prison on that date. While it is trué that the prosecutor himself may never have talked to White, he certainly should have been aware of any plea bargain offered in exchange for testimony in this case. The fact that White had been located in jail was not disclosed to the defendant nor were any of his statements.
Since the testimony of the one eyewitness, McBride, was so crucial to this case, the testimony of the other alleged eyewitnesses which was conflicting was certainly material. As Justice Marshall points out, one of the most basic elements of fairness in a criminal trial is that available evidence tending to show innocence, as well as that tending to show guilt, be fully aired before the jury. It is especially important that the state in its zeal to convict a defendant not ignore evidence that might exonerate him. United States v. Agurs, (1976) 427 U.S. 97, 116, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2403, 49 L.Ed.2d 342, 357 (dissenting opinion).
I believe the defendant in the instant case was denied his right to a fair trial and should be granted a new trial.
DeBruler, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported at 382 N.E.2d 899.