Court Opinion

ID: 9583586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:40:15.226074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:41.535660
License: Public Domain

SCHLEGEL, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
In several respects I believe the defendant did not receive a fair trial.
While the nature of the case and of the pretrial publicity would tend to create prejudice, I do not believe the evidence presented was sufficient to show an abuse of discretion in the court’s failure to order a change of venue.
On the issue of the prosecutor’s misconduct, I believe there was ample evidence of intentional misconduct to require a reversal. If no message is sent, either by the trial court or the appellate courts, prosecutors may believe that no conduct on their part can cause a reversal. Such is the case here. The majority simply states: “We conclude the conduct of the prosecutor did not deny the defendant a fair trial.” I believe the conduct was prejudicial to the defendant and was not cured by the actions of the trial court. The trial court pointed out the falsity of the statements of the prosecutor. I cannot easily excuse statements by any lawyer engaged in such a trial using false statements. While the court pointed out the falsity of the statements, it could not remove the prejudice in this inflammatory and emotional case.
I also believe the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim’s mother’s propensity toward violence toward her daughter. Farmer’s acquaintance with the victim and her mother was very short. Other evidence might well have convinced the jury that Farmer was not the perpetrator. The evidence was not necessarily offered to implicate the mother, but it tended to show the possibility of other violence having caused the death of the victim. Farmer was entitled to show that.
In a case such as this, it is difficult to avoid a feeling of outrage. The defendant being charged is likely to become the object of that outrage upon the slightest evidence. It is not our function to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It is our job to assure this defendant, and all others whose cases come before us, that there was a fair trial. I do not believe defendant received a fair trial in this case.
Finally, I believe the court was in error in excluding certain testimony of the expert, Cone. I believe the extent of his experience would qualify him to answer most of the questions propounded to him.
I would reverse for a new trial.