Court Opinion

ID: 9759847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:29:30.700544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:05.386697
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I must dissent. The fact that appellant’s wife was beaten and bruised by someone on certain occasions is ir*66relevant unless there is testimony to establish that it was appellant who beat her. I cannot agree with the trial judge, or the majority, who state that,
“[cjonsidering the frequency and unusual hours of the visits, the upset state of the victim and the victim’s arrival for a four day visit with nothing except the clothes she was wearing, the jury was entitled to infer that the victim had acquired the black eyes and bruises as a result of problems with her husband.”
It is just as possible, based on the above facts, that the victim was beaten by someone other than her husband, and was attempting to conceal that fact by not revealing to anybody who had beaten her. Her appearance at a friend’s house without any clothes except those she was wearing, could also indicate that the beating took place outside of her home by someone other than her husband.
This testimony was highly prejudicial, and its relevancy was not established. The admission of this testimony was error and warrants the award of a new trial.