Court Opinion

ID: 9885139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:32:49.506247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:44.571283
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER, dissenting: The prosecutrix testified that before her assailant drove the car away from the place where the sexual offenses took place, he asked her if some papers on the front seat were hers or his, “and I said, ‘Well, they might be mine. They might be receipts from a delivery, and he picked them up and threw them out of the car.’ ” After she was let out of the car, she returned at once to the scene of the offense, with her husband and two police officers. There Officer Bickel found “three pieces of paper, two check stubs and a check itself.” To find the defendant guilty it is necessary to believe that after committing the crimes he threw his own uncashed payroll check bearing his name and two payroll check stubs, readily identifiable as his, out of the car at the scene, thus providing evidence that was sure to lead the police to him. On the other hand, if someone else committed the offense, making sure that those documents were left at the scene of the crime would provide the criminal with an excellent defense. The defendant testified that he first missed the stubs and check when he reached in his pocket to give the check to his mother after dinner. His mother corroborated his testimony. Identification of the wrongdoer thus became critically important. The defendant was not identified in a lineup. His oral motion for a hearing as to the admissibility of the police station identification was denied, as the majority opinion points out. At the trial, Officer Bickel testified that after the defendant’s check had been found and the defendant had been arrested and taken to the police station, he went to the home of the prosecutrix and brought her to the station. He testified that on the way he “probably” told her that an arrest had been made and that someone was at the police station for her to identify. At the station, on their way to the watch commander’s office, they passed the room in which, Officer Bickel testified, were the defendant, Sergeant Conliss and a detective. The door was open, and Bickel told Sergeant Conliss that this was Mrs.-----. “She hesitated and we kept walking towards the watch commander’s office.” The majority justifies this conduct on the ground that her view of the defendant was “coincidental,” and that “[t] he record does not support defendant’s contention that the police intended and planned the confrontation, or that they had suggested to the witness the identity of the defendant.” As to the latter observation, I think that the record does show that the police had suggested to the witness the identity of the defendant. Just how the defendant could have gone about showing that the confrontation was “intended and planned” is not readily apparent. The law does not impose any such burden upon a defendant. At 6:46 P.M., after the jury deliberated for five hours and 15 minutes, the foreman advised the court that the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The following colloquy then took place: “THE COURT: Do you think if you were permitted to continue your deliberation you will be able to reach a verdict? THE JUROR: I can’t answer that briefly, Your Honor. There is doubt involved, and there’s just not enough to go on that we could--”. Thereafter the jury was told to return for further deliberation. An hour later the jury was again returned into open court and the foreman again advised the court that they had been unable to reach a verdict. The court instructed the jury to go back and try again. Only then was the verdict of guilty returned. In my opinion the evidence did not establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.