Court Opinion

ID: 9642518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:01:19.264067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:49.075795
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I most respectfully dissent because I believe the errors noted by the majority did not result in an unfair trial for the accused. The law does not require that a defendant receive a textbook perfect trial, but only a fair trial. See Michigan v. Tucker 417 U.S. 433 at 446, 94 S.Ct. 2357 at 2364, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974).
A careful reading of the extensive record indicates that no essential unfairness occurred.
Considering the quality and sufficiency of the evidence presented to the jury, I do not believe the trial errors were significant enough to require reversal.
References to the post-arrest silence of James and Holland were not reversible errors. The defendants were questioned a total of six times each. After receiving the Miranda warning, James gave the police an alibi on February 2, 1980. He repeated the alibi on February 5, remained silent on February 7, May 28 and June 11. He repeated the alibi on June 12.
Holland gave police the same alibi on January 21, 30 and February 6. He remained silent on May 28 but repeated the alibi on June 11 and 12.
Holland, following his arrest on May 28, gave statements to the police on June 11 and 12 in which he repeated the alibi he had given on January 21, 30 and February 6.
Considering that both defendants claimed the right to silence both before and after the arrest, I do not believe evidence of silence at the arrest scene was prejudicial.
*881The 8-color photographs of the victim were properly introduced into evidence. Two of the photos showed the victim as she was found at the murder scene and the third picture is a back-side morgue picture. They are relevant and admissible for the purpose presented. They were not unduly prejudicial because of the animal mutilation. Whether they were gruesome is of no consequence because they portray the body in the condition that it was found. Considering that there was expert testimony describing the effect of the shotgun blast to the face of the victim, the photos might be considered less gruesome.
The references to the jury sentence as a recommendation were not accompanied by any message that the responsibility of the jury was lessened. The jury was told that its verdict was a recommendation but there was inference that its responsibilities were lessened thereby. Any false impression on that score was corrected by defense counsel at trial.
I would affirm the conviction.