Court Opinion

ID: 9624867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:20:05.791746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:56.030953
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur here because State v. Hester, 114 Idaho 688, 760 P.2d 27 (1988) is controlling precedent. Although I dissented in Hester, it is now the law of this state, and I will follow it. I am unable to distinguish the facts of this case from those of Hester sufficiently to avoid its application as stare decisis.
Hester did not address the admissibility of hearsay under the Confrontation Clause. Giles has not raised the issue here. This issue has been raised in the companion case to this one, State v. Wright, S.Ct. No. 17033, that has been argued but not decided, and will be addressed there.