Court Opinion

ID: 9747982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:46:57.94949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:30.043422
License: Public Domain

ROBERT L. BROWN, Justice, concurring. In my opinion, when Blanchard through counsel conceded that some of the photographs were relevant, it was incumbent upon him to be specific as to which photographs passed muster and which did not. Then, the judge would have been required to exercise his discretion. See Smart v. State, 352 Ark. 522, 104 S.W.3d 386 (2003). Because of Blanchard’s concession, the larger question of whether a prosecutor has carte blanche to offer over a thousand images, over a defendant’s general objection on grounds of prejudice and cumula-tiveness, and whether the judge must exercise discretion at that point is not before us. For these reasons, I concur.