Court Opinion

ID: 9711525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:33:44.477928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:05.677036
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the result reached by my colleagues. In my opinion the defendant should be granted a new trial because the trial court erroneously and prejudicially refused to give the entire circumstantial evidence instruction. Again we are faced with the question of what is direct evidence and what is circumstantial evidence. My views on the subject have been set forth in earlier decisions and will not be restated here. I would only reiterate that I think it should be the option of the defendant as to whether the entire instruction should be given or only the first part. By so doing we would avoid the thorny problem of trying to decide precisely whether “all” of the evidence is circumstantial. In the instant case, where the proof depends entirely upon the application of the doctrine of constructive possession, it seems to me that almost by definition we are talking only of circumstantial evidence. The contraband was not discovered in the actual possession of the defendant. By their nature the elements of constructive possession, i.e., control of the premises and knowledge of the presence of the contraband, were established wholly by circumstantial evidence. Indeed the principal issue from which the commission of the offense could be inferred, as pointed out by the majority, was whether the defendant lived on the premises. Obviously, living on the premises was not an element of the offense charged. As the defendant’s relation to the premises was sketchy and was established by the testimony of witnesses whose credibility in other respects was not accepted by the jury, the jury should have been given the full instruction, and the failure to do so constituted reversible error.