Court Opinion

ID: 9535979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:52:33.687489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:24.481335
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in small part.
There are two main issues which need be decided, the first of which is stated in Fisher’s appeal brief to have a subissue:
1. Did the trial court err in holding that Lenell’s testimony from the previous
trial could be impeached with the letter presented by the prosecutor?

Subissue

Was the letter inadmissible pursuant to the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution? (U.S. Constitution Amendments 6 and 14.)
2. Did the trial court’s erroneous ruling allowing admission of the letter deny the defense the right to present its case?
My response to each is: YES. My main problem with the Fisher majority opinion is with Section IIB (ruling on the confrontation clause). It is unfair to hold against the defendant the fact that the trial court was lax in ruling on Fisher’s motion to exclude the letter. The appropriate remedy would seem to be a remand to the trial court to rule on the issue, not an affirmance of the conviction.
Other than that, I fully concur in the Court’s opinion.