Court Opinion

ID: 9688858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:09:27.637791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.678835
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I must dissent in this matter as my reading of the record presents an entirely different picture for analysis than it did for my associates on the panel. My colleagues contend that the evidence at trial was insufficient *508to support a guilty verdict of first-degree murder during the perpetration of a robbery or larceny. I disagree.
The record shows that the victim’s wallet, identification, personal effects, and money were missing from his cabin; that the defendant was nowhere to be found immediately after the body was discovered; that the defendant, after being ashore once during the night in question, left the ship and travelled to Detroit without getting the necessary permission slip from the ship’s captain and without his passport; and that when the defendant was apprehended he had in his possession some leather gloves stained by blood determined to be of the same type as that of the victim. This was sufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case of homicide in the perpetration of a robbery or larceny. Whether or not this evidence was adequate to convict defendant beyond a reasonable doubt was properly left to the jury.
As to the arguments concerning the court’s instructions I find, after rereading them, that the jurors were specifically told that they must reach a unanimous verdict. In reading the instructions as a whole, I find they were fair, complete and understandable.
The main opinion refers to this as being a compromise verdict. When a jury has enough evidence, as here, to return a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder under either theory, that is, the statutory murder charge with premeditation and deliberation present or under the felony-murder rule theory with evidence of robbery and killing present, then there is clearly no compromise.
I would affirm this conviction.