Court Opinion

ID: 9791176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:07:09.976276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.625592
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: The defendant has twice been convicted of the same aggravated robbery and this court has now twice reversed the conviction.
I grant the challenged cross-examination of defendant was error, but I do not agree it was reversible error. The majority has elected to study the evidence of past crimes under a microscope and has concluded it constitutes reversible error. However, under a microscopic examination, even a gnat looks like a monster. In looking at the whole picture — the totality of the trial — a different conclusion should be reached.
Two eyewitnesses positively identified defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. One of the eyewitnesses personally was acquainted with defendant from past employment. The evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
Add to this the fact the past crimes related to small insufficient fund checks. It is wholly unreasonable and illogical to assume that evidence of the defendant being a bad check writer made the jury believe defendant was an armed robber. I would hold the cross-examination to be harmless error and affirm the conviction.
Schroeder, C. J., joins in the above concurring and dissenting opinion.