Court Opinion

ID: 9762968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:34:32.333353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.815586
License: Public Domain

WATHEN, C.J.,
with whom CLIFFORD, J., joins, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. .1 disagree with the second prong of the Court’s obvious error analysis. In my judgment, no serious injustice resulted from receiving in evidence defendant’s admission that “she did not kill him, but ... she helped to bury the body.” Other evidence of defendant’s knowledge that she had a body buried in the floor of her shed is overwhelming. Defendant’s oldest daughter, Melissa, testified that she saw defendant shoot Ricky Pinard and then helped defendant bury Pi-nard with ashes in the shed. She testified that from that day forward, the shed, formerly used as a children’s play house, was converted to a storage area for wood and ashes. She testified further that after the burial, the shed was kept padlocked and defendant wanted only Melissa to retrieve wood from it. Blood stains were found on the mattress and on the wall in the bedroom where Melissa said the shooting occurred. Ricky Pinard’s body was found buried in the wood shed, in ashes, exactly *951where Melissa said it was buried. Defendant made reference to having killed and buried Ricky Pinard to other people stating, “What do they think — that I killed him and buried him on the property?” In a letter to a boyfriend, defendant admitted that “I did kill somebody.”
Against the factual backdrop presented in this case, defendant could not possibly have been harmed, nor could the fundamental fairness of the proceedings have been affected by evidence that she acknowledged some involvement in the burial. Even without her admission, any trier of fact would be compelled to conclude that she had some involvement in the burial of Ricky Pinard. Her admission added nothing to a conclusion that was otherwise ineluctable. I would affirm.