Court Opinion

ID: 9518110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:43:41.149354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:25.980086
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). The state has asked that this court change its mandate to one ordering an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of the statement made by the defendant and used at her trial. *187bIn the alternative, the state has requested that, if this court determines that the total circumstances of this case warrant, it order a reversal in the interest of justice rather than order a reversal and a new trial on the basis of error in the admission of the defendant’s statement. The defendant also urges that the mandate be changed to one ordering complete discharge and release.
We agree that the mandate should be changed. In its opinion, this court noted not only that the statement was not subjected to a Goodchild hearing, but that it also seriously infected the entire fact-finding process. However, even considering the statement as evidence, regardless of whether it was voluntary, there was not evidence which adduced, believed, and rationally considered by the jury was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder. In fact, the record clearly shows that the trial was conducted upon the theory that the defendant was obligated to prove her innocence.
Accordingly, a new trial, rather than promoting justice, would subject the defendant to undue hardship and the state to possible challenges for unconstitutionally subjecting the defendant to second jeopardy. Since from the total circumstances of this case as revealed by the record, it appears that a new trial would probably result in the defendant’s acquittal, this court, in the interest of justice, concludes that the defendant is entitled to her immediate discharge and release from the supervision of the Department of Health & Social Services.
The mandate is amended to conform with this opinion.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed.
Mr. Justice Robert W. Hansen dissents from the change of mandate.