Court Opinion

ID: 9678516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:21:27.81877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.085976
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
It seems clear to me that the Fischers refused to testify only because they were intimidated by defendant. There was no lack of an opportunity for confrontation because there is no doubt that if defendant *106had called the Fischers, they would have testified. Thus, defendant should not be permitted to invoke the Sixth Amendment where he himself is responsible for the failure of the court to have available personal testimony of the Fischers. I see no distinction between this case and the cases of State v. Olson and State v. Black cited in the majority opinion. I would affirm the conviction.