Court Opinion

ID: 9480157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:39:59.62189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:31.267283
License: Public Domain

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent because I believe with reasonable certainty that the verdict of the jury was not affected by references to the defendant’s prior record. I disagree with the court’s analysis for two reasons. First, in my view, the testimony of Sheriff Smith was not a reference to the defendant’s prior record. Second, I cannot concur in the suggestion that the inability of the first jury to reach a verdict can be used in accessing the effect of the questioned remarks on the jury in this case.
The basis for the court’s reversal lies within statements made by two witnesses. Irene Sands volunteered the defendant had “been to prison.”1 Even accepting that the jury might have fixed upon this statement within the context in which it was made, it stands as the only reference to defendant’s prior incarceration.
The second statement upon which the court focuses is that of Sheriff Smith who offered the incomplete statement: “Well, he [the defendant] had been recently out of —The court describes this statement as an attempt by Mr. Smith to discuss the defendant’s criminal record, but the remark is incomplete and therefore ambiguous. Taken in or out of context, the statement in no way refers to a prior conviction. We have no way of knowing what Mr. Smith meant, and, perforce, neither did the jury. To say, then, that this remark could have influenced the jury is conjecture.
As a consequence, we are left with only Ms. Sands’ testimony that her cousin had been “to prison.” We must weigh this statement against the evidence of guilt proffered by the prosecution to determine whether the volunteered remark could have influenced the outcome of this case. When the record is viewed in this light, I can find no reason to believe Ms. Sands’ revelation of the defendant’s prior incarceration had any effect on the jury.
There is an abundance of testimony that supports the verdict. First, evidence shows that the defendant, without provocation, pointed his gun at his victim’s head and “clicked” the trigger while threatening to kill the victim and the others in the car. (R. Vol. II, at 95). Second, the initial shooting of the victim, once in his side and once in his back, was without warning or provocation. Third, Sands got out of the car and pointed his pistol at Barbara Sands, his cousin, and asked if she was “going to tell.” (R. Vol. II, at 38). Defendant then turned to his victim, kicked him in the face, and fired three more shots point blank into his head and body. Id. at 39-40. In light of this evidence, I cannot believe the jury was influenced by Ms. Sands’ remark the defendant had “been to prison.”
Further, I can see no logic in drawing inferences from the inability of the first jury to reach a verdict. It seems patent to me that what may have influenced or failed to have influenced that jury is irrelevant. Even if the evidence presented to both ju-*917ríes was identical — which we do not know — the collective reaction of that body of people cannot be utilized to surmise the collective reaction of a completely different group of souls. We must judge the effect of the volunteered testimony only upon the jury which rendered the verdict. To do otherwise is neither just nor logical. I would affirm.

. This testimony came in without objection or interruption. It was not until some time after completion of cross-examination that defense counsel sought a mistrial on the basis of this statement. The prosecutor responded that the remark was a "surprise and shock” to him and that he was merely attempting to establish “her familiarity with the defendant." Taken in context, the question which prompted the response bears out that representation. The prosecutor asked Ms. Sands how long she had known the defendant and then asked where he had lived during that time. After the responding remark, the prosecutor asked whether the defendant had lived in the vicinity of Ms. Sands' house. (R. Vol. Ill, at 310). The context shows the purpose of the questions was to fix the nature and duration of Ms. Sands' familiarity with the defendant.