Court Opinion

ID: 9676315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:21:46.050556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:47.296161
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(concurring).
I fully concur in the principal opinion. I file this separate concurrence only because I am of the view that I should make some comment as to why, in my judgment, the alternative disposition suggested in Judge Morgan’s dissenting opinion is neither a permissible ñor an acceptable course of action for us to take in the disposition of this appeal.
In practically all of the cases cited in the dissent, it will be observed that the appellate court concludes that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of the offense of which the jury found defendant guilty, but was adequate to sustain a conviction of a lesser included offense, and the court then simply remanded the case to the trial court for imposition of sentence. This presented no particular problem because in the federal system and in many states in this country the fixing of punishment is by the judge rather than the jury. Consequently, the trial court, when the case is returned on remand, simply makes a determination as to what punishment should be assessed for the lesser included offense and acts accordingly. An exception exists in California, but that state has established by statute a bifurcated system in which a jury first determines guilt, and if defendant is found guilty, a second jury hearing is held to fix punishment. Hence, that state has an established statutory procedure for subsequent jury determination of punishment after guilt has been established.
In this state, when defendant is not charged as a second offender, the jury determines punishment as well as guilt, and does so in a single proceeding. Hence, we could not remand this case to the trial judge to fix and impose punishment for the lesser included offense because the judge has no authority to so do except in those instances when the jury is unable to agree on punishment and so states in its verdict. Neither do we have a statutory procedure, as in California, for a separate jury hearing to fix punishment, and I do not believe that we can establish such a system by court decision. I can find no statutory authorization for the procedure suggested by the dissent. Furthermore, even if we could *6follow such a procedure, a jury in Missouri, under existing statutes, assesses punishment based on all the evidence, including that as to guilt, and any new hearing for the purpose of determining guilt would necessitate the presentation of all of the evidence rather than simply a limited portion thereof. Hence, there would be no saving in time and effort.
I note that in the case of Forsha v. State, 183 Tenn. 604, 194 S.W.2d 463 (1946), a somewhat different approach was followed in that the court, after finding that the evidence would not support a conviction of murder in the first degree but was sufficient to warrant a conviction of murder in the gecond degree, reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to sentence the defendant to the minimum punishment for murder in the second degree. If we should do that in this case, we would direct that defendant be sentenced to ten years imprisonment. In my judgment, that would be a completely unacceptable solution to the problem.
Another difference between most of the cited cases and this case is the fact that in practically all of those cases the appellate court found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of the charge of which the jury convicted the defendant. Under those circumstances, the appellate court logically concluded to sustain a conviction of guilt of a lesser included offense with respect to which the evidence was sufficient. This is not true in the instant case because the principal opinion finds that the evidence was ample to sustain a conviction of the defendant of murder in the first degree. Reversal of the judgment only results from an improper instruction. Hence, there is no valid reason for not affording the state an opportunity to convict the defendant of the offense on which he was previously tried.
Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the procedure followed in these other states, under different factual circumstances and pursuant to entirely different statutory authorization, is inappropriate here and that the disposition of this case provided in the principal opinion of reversing and remanding for new trial is the proper one.