Opinion ID: 2621389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A remedy must be provided since the trial court acted improperly

Text: ¶ 34 Even if satisfied with Audett's objection, it is unclear whether the majority would reverse had Audett objected specifically to the testimony in addition to the examination itself. See majority at 987 ([W]e do not agree with Audett's contention that Williams mandates exclusion of evidence derived from the CR 35 exam.). The majority is comfortable not excluding the evidence because the the trial court's error in admitting the CR 35 exam was not an error of constitutional magnitude. Majority at 988-89. And what rule provides nonconstitutional errors have no remedy? The ¶ 1 ¶ 1 majority improperly surrenders its constitutional duty to protect and maintain individual rights. Const. art. I, § 1. ¶ 35 I dissent.