Court Opinion

ID: 9548250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:00:36.691479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:42.124246
License: Public Domain

BURNETT, Judge,
specially concurring.
Although I join in the result announced by today’s opinion, I do not fully agree with the Court’s analysis of the closing argument issue. In my view, defense counsel’s fleeting and unadorned reference to a lack of “corroboration” did not violate the ethical rule underlying our decision in State v. McNeely, 104 Idaho 849, 664 P.2d 277 (Ct.App.1983). Defense counsel did not argue falsely with respect to excluded evidence. He did not refer to any such evidence; neither did he state, or invite an inference, that any particular evidence did not exist. By holding that McNeely is triggered by a reference to lack of “corroboration,” my colleagues have given McNeely an unduly broad and mechanistic application.
Nevertheless, I would deem harmless the trial court’s apparent error in sustaining the objection to defense counsel’s argument. The objection, and the ruling upon the objection, were couched in such terse and innocuous language that any resultant prejudice must have been minimal. For that reason, I concur in the Court’s conclusion, if not in its analysis.