Court Opinion

ID: 9796514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:59:06.406794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:25.452413
License: Public Domain

Justice SCHROEDER,
Concurring in the result as to Part IX.
I agree with the result in part IX so far as it determines that Page’s motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct was properly denied. The Court relies upon established authority that prosecutorial misconduct is not a grounds for mistrial in a non-capital case. That is what the Court has said in the past, so the decision is well-founded on authority. However, it is precedent this Court will be called upon to abandon in the egregious case when a non-capital conviction is clearly tainted by misconduct. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial regardless of a statutory scheme that attempts to carve out an area where the results of a trial must stand even when a fair trial is denied.
In this case there was no prosecutorial misconduct that could reasonably be construed as influencing the outcome of the trial. Therefore, I concur in the result as to part IX.
Justice KIDWELL, concurring in the result as to part IX.