Court Opinion

ID: 9633097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:34:05.781516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:37.981904
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Justice CUNNINGHAM,
concurring in result only.
I concur in Justice Scott’s very well-written opinion, but share the concerns expressed in the dissent of Justice Noble. As Justice Scott points out, neither Hudson nor Robinson establish a bright line rule as to what can be included in describing the “nature” of a previous conviction. These cases make clear, however, that there is a limit and, accordingly, prosecutors should tread lightly. I simply do not believe that describing a burglary as forced entry while using a baseball bat crosses the line as to be prejudicial. When considering a burglary offense, the jury could certainly imagine a much more menacing means of forced entry which might make the use of a common baseball bat comparatively innocuous. Any deviation from Hudson and Robinson which may have occurred here, if error, was harmless.
SCHRODER, J., joins this opinion.