Court Opinion

ID: 9572876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:45:18.67813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:33.069895
License: Public Domain

SINGLETON, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment in this case. I am troubled that a number of legal errors occurred during this protracted trial. I am particularly concerned by the trial court’s handling of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, both in the rulings on testimony before the grand jury and rulings regarding testimony at trial. Many of Arnold’s casual statements to bystanders were admitted on the theory that they were made in furtherance of a conspiracy to collect money from T.S. for the murder of Hui Yi. This theory is not persuasive. After careful review of the record, however, and an evaluation of the arguments made in the parties’ briefs, I am satisfied that the errors which occurred were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). I reach this conclusion both with regard to the errors viewed in isolation and their possible cumulative impact. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict against Stumpf was not influenced by the errors that occurred, but resulted from the overwhelming admissible evidence against him.1

. The majority has elected to publish an opinion in this case despite the rather cursory treatment it gives to many of the issues. I fear that readers of the majority opinion may misinterpret it, causing significant errors in other cases.