Court Opinion

ID: 9682655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:15:15.471025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.591211
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. There is no doubt that the state proved that John Andrew Ward was in possession of recently stolen property and could be convicted for possession of stolen property. The state was also able to demonstrate that Ward probably lied in his testimony. But the state did not prove that Ward was a burglar. I seriously doubt whether a legal inference can be drawn which would support a conviction for burglary based on the simple fact that one is in possesson of recently stolen property. It is a requirement of the due process clause of the United States Constitution that the state prove each material element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Every conviction must be based upon substantial evidence. In the case of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), the Court said: "Under our system of criminal j ustice even a thief is entitled to complain that he has been unconstitutionally convicted and imprisoned as a burglar.” With all due respect to the majority it is my judgment that the evidence does not meet those standards in this case. Therefore, I dissent.