Court Opinion

ID: 9766936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:03:37.411917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:27.335605
License: Public Domain

EAGER, Judge
(concurring in part and concurring in result in part).
I feel that under the circumstances of this case Boldizs was in a very real sense a witness hostile to the State and thus subject to cross-examination for the purpose of impeachment only. The fact that the State’s counsel do not argue this point is immaterial, for the public is a party to this proceeding and it is not to be estopped by any actions of its representatives. Since the evidence of prior statements was apparently considered as substantive evidence, the case must be reversed on that ground, as well as for error in the selection of the jury, in which latter phase of the opinion I concur.