Court Opinion

ID: 9692944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:13:25.642075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:38.286086
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I do not find any material facts connecting the defendant with the crimes. The majority cites eight circumstances they contend connect the defendant to the crimes. I shall discuss each of them.
1. I do not find the fact that the defendant knew the victim to be probative of any material fact connecting the defendant to the crime. Whether one is a stranger or acquaintance of the victim is not in and of itself significant.
2. I do not find the fact that the victim had been at the defendant’s home on the day of the murder probative of any material fact connecting the defendant to the crime.
3. I do not find the fact there was a one minute phone call at 10:22 a.m. the day before the murder from the victim’s residence to the defendant’s residence to be probative of any material fact connecting the defendant to the crime.
4. I do not find the fact the defendant was selling cocaine for the victim to be probative of any material fact connecting the defendant to the crime of murder.
5. I do not find the fact that the Diehls saw a car in the vicinity where the victim’s body was found at about the time the murders were committed to be probative of any material fact connecting defendant to the crime. It is a common observation that all headlights of vehicles at night at a distance of 20 feet or more look round. Furthermore, no evidence was offered to show the statistical significance of a vehicle having *374round headlights. There was insufficient identification of the vehicle observed by the Diehls to connect it to the defendant.
6. I do not find the fact the defendant knew the Diehls and was familiar with the area where the victim’s body was found to be probative of any material fact connecting the defendant to the crime.
7. I do not find the fact gunpowder residue was found on the passenger’s side of defendant’s car to be probative of any material fact connecting defendant to the crime. The State’s expert witness testified the residue could remain on the upholstery for 10-15 years. There is no evidence indicating the victim was shot from a vehicle. The medical examiner said the two back wounds were caused by shots at a very close range, maybe an inch or two. There was no evidence of blood or tissue on defendant’s car.
8. I do not find the fact there was cash in the Johnson house the day of the murder and the fact the defendant had cash to pay bills after the murders to be probative of any material fact connecting, the defendant to the crime. There was no evidence that the defendant’s money was in the same amount as the victim’s or similar denominations. The defendant was a drug dealer and a sum of otherwise unexplained cash would not be unusual.
There are two other facts that should be discussed. Once the defendant was quoted as saying that he shot Mr. Johnson in the head. The victim was found shot in the head. I do not find this fact statistically significant. The number of murder victims killed by shots to the head are many. There is nothing significant about this type of murder that defendant’s statement is significantly corroborated by the happenstance of the actual murder.
The second fact is the defendant is quoted as saying that Mr. Johnson’s body would not be found for some time. The body was found lying in a ditch and was not found until a month later. Although this fact is more significant, I do not find it sufficiently significant to be corroborative of a material fact connecting the defendant to the crime.
Reviewing the ten circumstances cited by the majority, I do not find collectively they connect in any significant manner the defendant to the crime.
I would reverse the conviction of the defendant for the murder of Mr. Johnson.