Court Opinion

ID: 9757685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:54:01.847863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:42.742899
License: Public Domain

Roberts, J.,
dissenting. Because I am convinced that the action of the trial justice in denying in part the defendant’s motion for the direction of a verdict of acquittal constituted reversible error, I am constrained to' dissent from the majority opinion in this case and to state my reasons for so doing.
The controlling issue in this case was whether the death of the deceased was induced through a criminal agency for, if on the evidence adduced a jury would be warranted in finding the corpus delicti proved beyond a reasonable doubt, such evidence would submit to no other reasonable hypothesis but that th.e crime was committed by defendant. However, in my opinion the evidence at the time the motion for a direction was made was insufficient to warrant a finding by the jury that the corpus delicti had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and for that reason in my opinion it was error to deny defendant’s motion even in part.
When a defendant in a criminal case moves for the direction of a verdict of acquittal, it is well settled that the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Colvin, 82 R. I. 212. Such a motion challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to raise a jury question. However, a jury has a broad authority to determine questions relating to the credibility and weight to be given *222evidence and to draw reasonable inferences therefrom. Therefore, when a trial justice evaluates the evidence on such a motion, he must do so in a manner consistent with the scope of the jury’s authority. It is for this reason that a trial court is required on such a motion to give the evidence so challenged full credibility and weight and to draw therefrom any reasonable inferences that are probative of the charges made by the state. State v. Montella, 88 R. I. 469, 149 A.2d 919.
However, in appropriate circumstances a motion for the direction of a verdict of acquittal may require a determination antecedent to the decision as to the sufficiency of the evidence to raise a jury question as to- guilt. Such antecedent issue is whether on the evidence adduced the jury would be warranted in finding that a crime had in fact been committed, and it is my opinion that in the instant case the circumstances are such that the antecedent question is clearly raised by defendant’s motion to direct.
This court has recognized that the establishment of the corpus delicti, that is, of the commission of the crime, is antecedent to the question of the criminal agency of the accused in connection with that crime. In State v. Boswell, 73 R. I. 358, this court said at page 362: “The corpus delicti cannot be presumed. A defendant is not required to answer for the alleged commission of a crime in the absence of evidence, direct or circumstantial, sufficient to establish the corpus delicti, which expression, according to well-established law, means the body of the crime, that is, the mere commission of a crime irrespective of who may have committed it.” The quoted language in my opinion is significant of the antecedent character of the issue as to the corpus delicti in the course of a criminal trial. When in a criminal case the state of the evidence is such that a jury would not be warranted in finding that the crime alleged was in fact committed, a right to be discharged accrues to the accused and properly may be asserted by a mo*223tion for the direction of a verdict of acquittal. When such motion is timely made in these circumstances, its denial constitutes reversible error. Waide v. State, 13 Okla. Crim. 165.
That the corpus delicti may be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence and that it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is well settled. State v. Boswell, supra. In that case at page 363 the court said: “It seems unnecessary for us to add that a defendant cannot be convicted unless the corpus delicti and defendant’s, participation in committing the crime are established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For circumstantial evidence to be of sufficient probative force to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it must have a well-recognized exclusory effect, that is, its probative force is dependent upon the extent to which that evidence excludes reasonable theories that are inconsistent with the ultimate facts sought to be established. Such evidence will be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when it excludes any reasonable hypethesis or theory concerning the guilt of a defendant that would be inconsistent with his commission of the. crime charged. State v. Blood, 68 R. I. 160; State v. Di Noi, 59 R. I. 348.
An apt statement of the rule is contained in Brown v. State, 222 Md. 290, where that court said at page 296: “And, when guilt is based solely upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken together, must be inconsistent with, or such as to exclude, every reasonable hypothesis or theory of innocence.” It is my opinion that this test for the determination of the probative force of circumstantial evidence is also to be applied in testing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to warrant finding the corpus delicti when a motion for a direction is made rather than the usual test on such motions, that is, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state.
*224When the state attempts to establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt and relies entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the sufficiency of that evidence to warrant a verdict will depend upon its exclusory character, that is, whether the proven circumstances, taken together, are such as to exclude any hypothesis or theory that would be inconsistent with the perpetration of the crime alleged. State v. Whisler, 231 Iowa 1216; Walters v. Commonwealth, 291 Ky. 573; Hester v. State, 37 Ga. App. 518. A concise and lucid statement of the principle is contained in Denham v. Commonwealth, 239 Ky. 771, where the Kentucky court said at page 776: “Circumstantial evidence which is as consistent with the absence of a crime as with the perpetration of the crime is insufficient to prove the corpus delicti.”
In this case I find inescapable the conclusion that the evidence upon which the state relies for proof of the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt is entirely circumstantial in character. The view of the majority, as I understand it, is that the testimony of the physician who performed the autopsy concerning his expert opinion as to- the cause of the asphyxial death partakes of the character of direct evidence on the issue of the corpus delicti and that therefore the case is not one in which the evidence upon which the state relies for proof of the commission of a crime is entirely circumstantial. With this proposition I am unable to agree. The opinion of the medical witness was that the asphyxial death in this case was induced by manual strangulation. The witness reached this conclusion by reason of his observation of the condition of the body during the autopsy and the nature of certain marks and bruises on the body. In other words, the inferences upon which the witness’ opinion is based were drawn from evidence in the record which was circumstantial in its character.
Opinion evidence, including that of expert witnesses, is entirely inferential in character. It consists of the infer*225enees of a witness that have been drawn from facts either established or assumed. In re Estate of Scanlan, 246 Iowa 52; Wright v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, 188 Mo. App. 457. Obviously, while such inferences evidence probability with respect to the fact sought to be proved, they do not conclusively demonstrate the existence of such fact. It is for this reason that I take the view that the opinion of an expert witness which is based upon inferences drawn entirely from evidence which is circumstantial in its character partakes of the character of the evidence from which it is drawn. When such an opinion is based upon an inference premised wholly upon circumstantial evidence, I cannot escape the conclusion that the opinion is in itself in the nature of circumstantial evidence.
On defendant’s motion for the direction of a verdict of acquittal, therefore, the court was required to test the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to warrant the jury’s finding proof of a corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of whether such evidence excludes any reasonable hypothesis or theory that would be inconsistent with a conclusion that the death resulted from a criminal agency. Whether the evidence be consistent with a reasonable hypothesis that the death did result from a criminal agency, if it also be consistent with any reasonable hypothesis or theory that the death resulted from a cause other than a criminal act, the very existence of that alternate hypothesis of death resulting from a noncriminal act creates a reasonable doubt which would preclude the jury from finding that the corpus delicti had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I do not contend that in the instant case when all of the circumstances are taken together they will not support a reasonable hypothesis that the deceased died as the result of a criminal act. I am convinced, however, that this evidence, taken as a whole, will support also a reasonable hypothesis that the death of the deceased was not the result *226of a criminal agency, for, without unduly extending this dissenting opinion by a detailed discussion of the evidence, it is in my opinion susceptible of a reasonable inference that the death of the deceased resulted from a cause other than one criminal in nature. That being so, the circumstantial evidence must be held to be insufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the corpus delicti had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. For this reason I believe that it was reversible error to have denied in part the defendant's motion for a direction of a verdict of acquittal and that his exception thereto should have been sustained.
On Motion for Reargument.
OCTOBER 2, 1961.
Per Curiam. After our decision in the above case the defendant asked for and received permission to file a motion for reargument. Pursuant thereto he has filed such a motion, setting out therein certain reasons on which he bases his contention that justice requires a reargument of the case. We have carefully considered those reasons and we are of the opinion that they are without merit.
The defendant stresses a secondary argument that we failed to consider his exception to the admission into evidence of the autopsy report which he alleges was inadmissible as being contrary to the provisions of G. L. 1956, chap. 23-4. It is his contention that the doctor performing the autopsy was not the chief medical examiner as required by that chapter. He fails to recognize the provision for temporary expert assistance set forth in §23-4-6 therein. Indeed, the record establishes that Dr. Gary P. Paparo was competent, qualified and authorized within the meaning of the applicable statute. This was implied in our decision and we now so expressly state.
Motion denied.
*227J. Joseph Nugent, Attorney General, Corinne P. Grande, Special Counsel for State.
Maxwell W. Waldman, Aram A. Arabian, for defendant.