Court Opinion

ID: 9695996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:33:16.316286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.851145
License: Public Domain

O’Sullivan, J.
(dissenting). My disagreement with the majority arises out of a difference of *490opinion as to the merit of certain assignments of error addressed to the charge.
This was a most unusual case. It was one where the only evidence linking the defendant to the murder came from his brother Albert. For the jury to return a verdict of guilty without that evidence was a legal .impossibility. Some of the defendant’s requests to charge were directed to the obvious irreconcilability of Albert’s testimony with the description of the killer frequently given by Wolf son during the several days through which he lingered before dying. Wolfson, who had had a splendid opportunity to observe his assailant in the light of his well-illuminated store, described him as blond, short and baby- faced. The defendant is dark, tall and lantern-jawed.
Since the defendant could not have been the murderer if Wolfson’s description was accurate, and because the defendant, both before and during the trial, had challenged his brothei’s sanity, at least three of the defendant’s requests to charge were not only pertinent to the issues but, far more important, were actually vital to the defense. See A-303 Rec. & Briefs, back of p. 887 et seq., par. 145, 146, 147. The failure of the court to comply with these requests, I am convinced, was 'harmful error, requiring a new trial.
In this opinion Baldwin, J., concurred.