Campbell v. StateCampbell v. State
Lead Opinion
On Application for Rehearing
The opinion of September 26,1997, is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor.
We originally released an opinion in this case on September 26, 1997; the judgment line was “reversed and remanded.” This decision was based on our holding that the trial court had found Campbell guilty based on “reasonable cause” — a burden of proof below the required standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Because we reversed on that issue, we did not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence in that opinion. We provided the trial court with no instructions on remand other than to conduct further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Upon further review of the record and the issues, we now find that the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence is the dispositive issue on appeal for the reasons set forth below. Consequently, we grant Campbell’s application for rehearing.
After a trial in the District Court of Madison County, at which ore tenus evidence was presented, Marty Campbell was adjudged guilty of assault in the third degree. Campbell appeals directly from district court’s order challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on several grounds.
The complaint charging the offense of third-degree assault alleged that Campbell “did, on or about January 21, 1997, commit the crime of assault 3rd by: with the intent to cause physical injury to Melissa Campbell, did cause physical injury by: striking her with his fist, in violation of § 13A-6-22 of the Code of Alabama.” C.R. 3.
Officer Kevin Lester of the Madison County Sheriffs Department was the only witness who testified in this trial. He testified that on January 21,1997, he and his partner went to the house of Melissa and Marty Campbell, husband and wife, in response to a dispatch reporting what appeared to be a domestic dispute. He stated that when he arrived he found Mrs. Campbell seated on the sofa and Mr. Campbell asleep in the bedroom. He testified that there was no one else in the house when he arrived. Lester noticed bruises on the right side of Mrs. Campbell’s face and on her right wrist. He determined at that time to arrest Mr. Campbell pursuant to
The defense moved for a directed verdict,
“(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:
“(1) With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes physical injury to any person; or
“(2) He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
“(3) With criminal negligence he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
“(4) With intent to prevent a peace officer from performing a lawful duty, he causes physical injury to any person.”
Specifically, Campbell argues that no evidence was presented that he committed the crime, that no evidence was presented showing that the victim had sustained a physical injury or substantial impairment, and that the trial judge’s finding “reasonable cause” of guilt was improper and a lower standard of proof than the correct standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“When the evidence has been presented ore tenus, the judgment of the trial court is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and that judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong.” W.K.D. v. B.L.D.,
The only evidence presented against Campbell is that he was asleep in his bed when police arrived. The victim did not testify. No explanation was offered for the bruises Lester saw.
“A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only if the [factfinder] could have reasonably found that the State’s evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt.’ ...
[[Image here]]
“... A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must be reversed if the evidence presented by the State can be reconciled with a theory that someone other than the defendant committed the crime.”...
Gibbs v. State,
For this reason, the conviction against Campbell is due to be reversed and a judgment rendered in his favor.
OPINION OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1997, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPLICATION GRANTED; REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED.
Notes
. Technically, a motion for a judgment of acquittal — not a motion for a directed verdict — is the proper motion to test the sufficiency of the evidence. Rule 20, Ala.R.Crim.P., "abolished the motion for directed verdict in criminal cases and substituted for it the motion for judgment of acquittal.” Rule 20, Ala.R.Crim.P., Committee Comments. However, we have treated motions
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority opinion that there was insufficient evidence to support the appellant’s conviction for third-degree assault. I concur specially to address the unique problems that the criminal justice
Over the years, Alabama law has evolved in its treatment of domestic violence issues. One change was the enactment of
In many cases, the alleged victim is unwilling to testify against an abusing partner. Although we realize that domestic violence victims have unique problems, this refusal to testify makes prosecution of these cases difficult and, in some cases, virtually impossible. We are faced with such a situation in this case. Without the victim’s testimony, there is nothing to show that the appellant assaulted the victim and caused the bruises she sustained.
Every day police officers respond to domestic violence calls. These situations are volatile and highly dangerous. The warrant-less arrest provision in
Efforts have been made by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to deal with the problem of domestic violence. However, no true advances can be made until more victims of domestic violence begin to cooperate with the criminal justice system in its efforts to bring offenders to justice.