 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fitch v. State8/31/2001
ation in the construction project as an independent contractor. In other words, the jury could have believed that Fitch intended to deprive the County of the difference between the cost of Edwards's working to close the landfill while serving as a County employee and what Edwards received for closing the landfill as an independent contractor.
"`"`... The weight of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence, where susceptible of more than one rational conclusion, are for the jury alone.' ... `It was within the province of the jury to give the evidence in the case whatever weight and emphasis they thought proper in reaching their verdict.'... `Where, ... there is conflicting evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, it is for the jury to resolve the conflict and determine the defendant's guilt or innocence. ... In making its determination, the jury may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony presented by either side.'"'" Miller v. State, 645 So. 2d 363, 367-68 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994)(citations omitted).
Although the jury heard testimony to the effect that the price the County had paid to close the landfill was fair, the jury also heard evidence that Edwards had overcharged the county for his work on the landfill. Steve Koehn testified that he could have done Edwards's job for $25,000 Harrison testified that a contractor's profit margin was normally 10% to 15%. Edwards received $154,000 from Gates for his work at the landfill; after expenses, his profit was approximately 50%. This testimony indicated to the jury that Edwards had overcharged the county for his work closing the landfill. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence regarding Edwards's earnings and to determine whether Edwards had intentionally overcharged the County for his work. If the jury believed there was an overcharge by Edwards, the overcharge constituted the element of intent to deprive the County of its property. From this evidence, the jury could by fair inference find Fitch guilty of theft of property beyond a reasonable doubt, because he had aided and abetted Edwards.
Although it was a close question, sufficient evidence was presented to support the denial of Fitch's motion for a judgment of acquittal. Once the case was given to the jury, it was the jury's responsibility to weigh the evidence; its conclusions should not be disturbed on appeal.
III.
Fitch contends that the State used peremptory strikes to exclude jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991). The following transpired at trial.
"MR. BAXLEY [defense counsel]: Your Honor, the Defendant would respectfully move that our client's rights have been violated under the Constitution of the United States and under the Supreme Court decision of Batson in that the State has 16 strikes and they exercised 10 of those to strike minority or black people, which is a percent greatly higher than the roughly 35% of the venire that was minority or is greatly higher than the population of the County. And, therefore, we ask that the jury be replaced with one that's more in keeping with the -- that's it.
"THE COURT: All right.
"MR. MCKNIGHT [defense counsel]: Judge, one additional ground, just for the record, there were 11 black males on the jury, they struck 8 of them, almost 80% of the black males.
"THE COURT: All right. How many strikes altogether did the State have?
"THE CLERK: Seventeen.
"MR. JOHNSTON: Seventeen.
"THE COURT: And they struck how many blacks?
"MR. MCKNIGHT: Ten.
"T
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|