Court Opinion

ID: 9571254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:30:16.383739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:33.207325
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GROVES
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent but only with respect to Section III of the majority opinion. When the question arose at the trial *233as to whether the attorney for the defendant might use the photographs available in the cross-examination of Mrs. Córtese, there was considerable discussion of the matter by court and counsel. The court made several statements of its views, some of which were not entirely consistent. The last ruling made by the court in the matter was as follows:
“Well, the court rules now that Mr. MacDonald’s request on behalf of the defendant is denied. There may be no use of the pictures, but only oral examination of the witness as to whether of not she has seen the pictures, what the circumstances were. Please bring the jury in.”
It is my interpretation of this ruling that the photographs available could not be used in connection with the cross-examination of the identifying witness. This was clearly an improper restriction on cross-examination. Archina v. People, 135 Colo. 8, 307 P.2d 1083 (1957). We cannot speculate on the extent to which defendant’s attorney might have affected the credibility of the witness had he been permitted to cross-examine with the photographs. Therefore, the error must be regarded as prejudicial. I would therefore reverse on this basis.
Justice Erickson has authorized me to state that he joins in this dissent.