Court Opinion

ID: 9737156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:17:32.98418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.848557
License: Public Domain

Fine, J.
(dissenting in part). I would reverse the defendant’s
convictions on the ground that his motions for required findings of not guilty should have been allowed. The waitress may have had some cause to become suspicious of the pair in the doughnut shop, but her observations were not sufficient to justify a leap to the conclusion that a crime was being committed, at least not one in which the defendant was a participant. His conduct in the crowded doughnut shop was at least as consistent with an intention on his part to do no more than purchase doughnuts as it was with an intention to invade the cash register. A box of doughnuts was found in the car. The waitress admitted that she had never seen the lever. She was told where it was. It may be assumed, therefore, that she didn’t know how it worked, and no other evidence was offered to fill this gap. The black object Gaines was holding as he bent down could have been a knife, but it was equally likely that it was the comb found in his pocket when he was arrested.
Although in my view it is not necessary for the court to reach the issue discussed in part 2 of the opinion, I do not disagree with the majority’s reasoning.