Court Opinion

ID: 9779523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:05:11.992452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:27.363372
License: Public Domain

BILLINGS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur fully in the principal opinion. I write to take issue with the dissenting opinion of Welliver, J.
The dissent first criticizes the prosecuting attorney for filing the particular charges — authorized by law and supported by the evidence submitted. Next, the dissent condemns the prosecuting attorney for personally prosecuting the case, rather than turning it over to a subordinate — either course authorized by law. And, the dissent demeans the prosecuting attorney for the manner in which the case was presented — although asserting no legal error calling for reversal.
Finally, is the dissent’s censure of a learned, highly respected, and experienced (nearly 14 years) trial judge for permitting a jury to resolve the issues and temper justice with mercy (life without probation or parole, rather than the death penalty), and, further, in failing to “lean over backwards to see that appellant had the fairest jury trial possible.”
I suggest the trial court and this Court fulfill their constitutional and lawful duties when the law is followed and upheld — rather than conjuring up reversible error where none exists.