Court Opinion

ID: 9726785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:08:25.493541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:30.714925
License: Public Domain

ON CRIMINAL PETITION FOR TRANSFER
GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as to their limitation of the Patterson rule. The majority cites its opinion on rehearing in the case of Lambert v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 235, (Givan and Pivarnik, JJ., dissenting).
As was pointed out in the dissent in that case, the fact that the declarant testifies at trial is sufficient to invoke the Patterson rule. I believe this is emphasized in the majority's opinion in this case when it holds that the Patterson rule was violated but that the violation did not constitute reversible error.
I think the trial court was correct in its application of the Patterson rule.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.