Court Opinion

ID: 9585755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:03:36.597119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:11.741435
License: Public Domain

Justice Webb
concurring.
I agree with the majority that it is error requiring a new trial for the superior court to have charged on willful blindness. I believe this is so because it relieved the State of proving knowledge, which is an essential element of the case.
I disagree with the majority as to its treatment of testimony that the defendant had no prior convictions. If this testimony had been in the proper form I believe it should have been considered as substantive evidence. I believe it is more likely that a person with no prior convictions will not commit a crime than a person who has prior convictions.
I also disagree with the majority in its holding that the defendant’s reputation for truth and honesty is irrelevant to the crimes for which he was tried. It is evident to me that a truthful and honest person is not as likely to traffic in marijuana as one who is not truthful and honest. I would hold that the court should have charged on this evidence.
The majority has ordered a new trial for the defendant and I concur in this result.