Court Opinion

ID: 9778403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:03:28.529514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:08.376370
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. My reason is that I believe the introduction of the evidence about the attack upon Dale Corum, the friend of the prosecutrix, by defendant’s brother, prevented defendant from having a fair trial.
In the atmosphere of this trial, involving motorcycles, smoking marijuana, young people chasing around aimlessly at night, drinking, gang action and general mindless violence, the attack by defendant’s brother on the prosecutrix’s date could not have done other than inflame the jury.
The attack on one third party by another, at a time when the defendant was not present or in any way aiding and abetting in what was happening, was immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent and was highly prejudicial, especially in a case in which rape and sodomy were the charges. Defendant should have a new trial.
On the issue of how we should deal with error in the admission of evidence, I agree with Judge Donnelly’s views as expressed in his concurring opinion.
On the issue of whether the attack upon the constitutionality of the statute must be entertained, I agree with Judge Bardgett’s views as expressed in his concurring opinion.