 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams6/30/2004
hat appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence is only true because of the various determinations of credibility made by the jury. Thus, if evidence had been available, which could have significantly impacted those credibility assessments, then the state's case against appellant was not so overwhelming to preclude a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.
. The state's case frankly rested on fragile ground. If all the late evidence had been admitted, the jury had to find that appellant raped and violently beat the victim, despite uncontested testimony that Roslyn indicated a desire to have sex with appellant. It would have to reconcile the contrary statements of Tracy and David as to when and how David's arm was injured. Further, it would have to believe Tracy's hearsay recollection that David and Fahim went to several hospitals prior to his 11:30 a.m. arrival and treatment at a local hospital. Moreover, the jury had to find that, notwithstanding evidence of extreme intoxication and valium use, Roslyn was alert enough to sustain frontal defensive wounds to her arms, but no trauma to her rectum. Finally, it would have to discount the presence of the additional unidentified semen.
. For the jury to rule out David, it had to ignore his history of physical violence with Roslyn and it had to believe David had an alibi during the time Roslyn was assaulted and left to die. In addition, the jury had to find that the sexual activity with appellant and the violent assault occurred at about the same time.
. Due to the untimely submission of discovery, defense counsel's ability to attack the credibility of the state's evidence was greatly hindered. If David's alibi and hand injury had been meaningfully challenged, the jury would have had to seriously consider him as an alternative suspect. Equally troubling was the state's failure to require BCI to analyze the key in the car ignition and the fingernail and ring scrapings. As mentioned previously, Ms. Shannon stated that she was instructed only to examine the evidence for semen and she stopped all further analysis once she linked appellant to the DNA.
. Based on the evidence which was before the jury, there was some evidence to support the jury verdict. Thus, the trial court's judgment should not be reversed on that particular basis. However because the state either deliberately or inexcusably delayed or failed to complete discovery of material, exculpatory items in a timely manner, the motion for a new trial should have been granted. By delaying complete and vital discovery in the underlying case, the state committed prejudicial error. This was a murder and rape conviction, not a parking ticket. Gamesmanship or incompetence of this magnitude by the prosecution should result in a reversal. Appellant's actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant to that conclusion.
. Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, I would conclude that appellant's first two assignments of error have merit. Accordingly, I would reverse appellant's conviction and remand this case for a new trial. To this end, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|