Court Opinion

ID: 9696175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:39:47.266127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:19.242115
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and, with the single caveat set forth below, I join the opinion of the court.
Over defense objection, the prosecutor was permitted to introduce into evidence testimony that Marcia Watson made statements to third parties tending to inculpate Sweet. The court sustained objections, however, to exculpatory testimony proffered by the defense to the effect that Ms. Watson identified Terry Pleasant, and not Bradley Sweet, as the shooter. As a result, the jury may have received the impression that Ms. Watson’s version of events was consistently inculpatory of Sweet when, if the prospective defense witnesses were to be credited, the contrary would be true. Such an impression may be inaccurate and unfair.
Under these circumstances I do not believe that, on retrial, Sweet should be foreclosed from arguing for the admission of Ms. Watson’s alleged exculpatory statements for the purpose of impeaching her inculpatory statements. I do not read the majority’s opinion as precluding such a defense contention.