Court Opinion

ID: 9744166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:55:08.806817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:47.111797
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE MILLS, dissenting: The majority is merely second-guessing the jury. I do not view the contextual quality of the evidence as do my brothers. To my view, this case poses the classic jury question: Determining the credibility of the witnesses, the weighing of the evidence, and deciding whether or not reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant exists. The jury found here that there was no such doubt as to voluntary manslaughter and returned a verdict of guilty. It is not our province to meddle and mess with that finding, to substitute our personal view for that of the trier of fact or to engage in second-guessing. We each have our respective role to play in the judicial process — counsel, trial judge, jury, and reviewing court. And when we forget our proper parts, or try to assume or play another’s character, the function of the whole is imbalanced and the system flounders. Our method of justice is finely tuned and precisely tooled. Its smooth operation depends upon each part functioning within its designated orbit and relying on the other mechanisms doing theirs — without interference. Once one part takes away from another, or exceeds its allotted authority, the entire machine becomes out of sync, faulty and incapable of high performance. The checks and balances are there, of course, but they are to be used sparingly — and only when another partner in the process so patently fails to function properly is a reviewing court justified in preempting the field. The record tells us that some 17 witnesses testified. There was a rancorous and biting marriage. There was a real or imagined paramour. There were bullets under pillows. There was a wrangle and scuffle. Five .357 magnum bullets were expended. Decedent was hit three times with armor-piercing bullets (not the type normally carried in the service weapon used by him on police duty). It was all complex, all piecemeal, some contradictory. The jury heard it — it was the jury’s call. We have no business second-guessing the trier of fact and that is precisely what I think the majority is doing here. I would affirm the jury’s verdict.