Court Opinion

ID: 9685259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:27:20.142913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:03.685435
License: Public Domain

IRVING C. IVERSON, Justice*
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority.
This court concluded in the initial appeal of this case, State v. Weekes, Minn., 250 N.W.2d 590, 595 (1977), that—
“ * * * [s]hould the trial court, after a rehearing, find that defendant’s statements were an intervening, independent product of his free will so as to dissipate the taint of his illegal detention and confinement, his conviction is affirmed; otherwise, a new trial is granted.”
It is fundamental that upon an appeal from the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of a trial court, the findings of the trial court will not be set aside by the appellate court unless the findings of the trial court are dearly erroneous. This basic principle is religiously followed by the courts as well when consideration is given to the reversal of a jury verdict. The rationale of the principle is based upon the commonsense realization by appellate courts that the trial judge or the jury as trier of fact is in a better position to evaluate the testimony of witnesses than the appellate court where the review of testimony and other evidence is made on the basis of a “cold, written record.”
The majority opinion in no respect discloses any departure by the trial judge from the “guidelines” set forth in the initial appeal and remand in the trial court’s conduct at the remand hearing.
The lengthy incarceration following the illegal arrest, we must all condemn. The majority opinion stresses the fact that the mother of the deceased child as well as the brother-in-law of the defendant were denied visitation with the defendant. This should not be of much moment. Having in mind that at the time of the incarceration neither of those visitors were related to the defendant, their exclusion from visitation was no doubt justified. Reasonable restrictions on visitation by nonrelatives would seem appropriate. This would be particularly appropriate here where the deceased infant’s mother, unrelated to defendant at the time, sought visitation with defendant, the prime suspect in the case.
The length of the incarceration (34 hours) appears to be the sole factor which the majority finds as a basis for its reversal and the granting of a new trial. All of the other factors explored by the trial judge at the rehearing led to the conclusion by the trial court that the “taint of the illegal detention” had been purged.
If the findings of the trial court are to be summarily reversed upon that sole ground, the court in the opinion of the dissent should have reversed the conviction at the time of the initial appeal and granted a new trial.
The trial court’s findings, under the guidelines laid down in the initial opinion of this court, having been scrupulously adhered to, and with the added advantage of having the witnesses before it for proper evaluation, should be affirmed and the conviction should be allowed to stand.

 Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn.Const. art. 6, § 2, and Minn.St. 2.724, subd. 2.