 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hamilton4/12/2002
ly, there was nothing to link appellant's fingerprint to the moment of the crime.
The facts were that appellant had lived with the victim on and off for months prior to the murder. During this time, he apparently had access to at least one other gun present in the home. However, the state provided no evidence, direct, inferential, or circumstantial, to show precisely when appellant imprinted the murder weapon. Accordingly, this case is in sharp contrast to the typical fingerprint situation in which the offender only had access to the murder weapon when the homicide was committed. As a result, because of the lack of "hard" evidence in linking appellant directly to the crime, any error in the presentation of the other circumstantial evidence becomes critical.
In United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499, 508-509, the United States Supreme Court observed that "there can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and * * * the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial." However, even though the Supreme Court has found no constitutional right to a perfect trial, there is a constitutionally protected right to a fair one. Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986), 475 U.S. 673, 681.
With the foregoing in mind, the appellate court's responsibility is not to make sure the "right" side wins, but to ensure that each side has the same opportunity to present its case. Stated differently, we are entrusted to protect the process, not to guarantee the result.
After reviewing the record, I reluctantly agree that a reversal is necessary; not to protect appellant, but to protect the integrity of the judicial process. Every accused individual, regardless of guilt or innocence, is entitled to an even playing field upon which to present a defense. Even when the evidence of guilt may initially appear to be overwhelming, the process must continue to be fair and impartial. The role of an appellate court is to guarantee that happens.
As the majority correctly observes, the state presented several witnesses who provided circumstantial evidence that could support an inference that appellant was guilty of killing his grandfather. Appellant was angry with the victim and, depending on who you believed, had the opportunity to commit the crime.
Further, the jury was presented with evidence that appellant was frequently "stoned," that he played with guns, that his entire family, with the exception of the victim, had essentially written him off, and that he was an ingrate to the only person who continued to try to reach him, the victim.
In short, appellant was portrayed as a "bad" person and fell into what I call the "mad dog" category. I define that as a person who may or may not be guilty of a specific crime, but nevertheless is so bad that he needs to be put away, regardless of any guilt for the immediate crime. While on certain days, that theory may seem to have some merit, it is a theory which cannot be used in our court system without amending the Constitution.
Thus, while circumstantial evidence and inferences upon inferences may seem to support a conviction, the state still had to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not sure it did in light of the cumulative effect of the erroneous evidential admissions as to bad character.
Although I am in agreement with the majority's conclusion that the trial court improperly permitted a witness to testify about appellant's drug use, I wish to comment further on this matter. Importantly, there was no evidence that a drug-crazed murderer committed the homicide. Beyond the murder itself, there was no appearance of any excessively brutal, irrational behavior. To the c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|