Court Opinion

ID: 9520587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:44:34.95363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:29.663427
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse the conviction.
I do not quarrel with the logic of the rationale underlying the holding of Part I. I agree with the majority that
"if one attempts to reconcile the evidence with the presumption of innocence, it is implicit that the presumption continues to apply." Slip opinion at 8.
Such logic, however, does not permit us to affirm the conviction in the light of binding precedent. Contrary to the interpretation placed by the majority upon Farley v. State (1891) 127 Ind. 419, 26 N.E. 898, I read that case to require that the jury be specifically told that the presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial. It is not sufficient that the jury be instructed generally upon the presumption of innocence, and that the evidence should be reconciled if possible consistent with the defendant's innocence and that guilt must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt by all the evidence. In Farley, the jury was instructed that the presumption of innocence exists until a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was made. Clearly, one cannot determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt until the evidence has been concluded, but the majority would say that implicit in the instruction given in Farley is the principle that the presumption necessarily follows to and including the time when the evidence is weighed and the guilt determination is made. Yet Farley held otherwise requiring an instruction stating not only that it was the duty of the jury to reconcile the evidence with the hypothesis of innocence, but as well that the presumption prevails throughout the trial.
Ridge v. State (1928) 192 Ind. 639, 137 N.E. 758 convinces me of such requirement. Ridge presents the converse of the situation before us. In Ridge, instructions were given which stated the presumption of innocence, and that it remains throughout the trial, and until guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was held inadequate and that the jury must be instructed that they must reconcile the evidence upon the theory that the defendant is innocent. The conviction in Ridge was therefore reversed. If we are to follow binding precedent as set forth in Farley and Ridge, the same result is dictated in the case before us no matter how unduly technical it may appear.