Court Opinion

ID: 9710369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:08:15.207197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:56.315172
License: Public Domain

*122RAKER, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment only because I believe that the trial court committed no error in this case. Edward Barry, Tharp’s counsel, was listed as a witness on the defense witness list and was never removed from the list as a potential witness.
The majority concludes that the trial court “erred from the inception in not inquiring further or not recognizing that Tharp’s attorney had been redacted from the witness list ... and thus was no longer subject to Rule 5-615.” Maj. op. at 105. I disagree. I do not think it apparent that Seller’s attorney intended to redact his witness list and, if that is what he intended to do, he need only have said so. The record in this case indicates that the prosecutor, as well as the trial judge, continued to believe that Mr. Barry remained on the list. Inasmuch as the rule mandates sequestration if the request is made before testimony commences, under the circumstances presented herein, the trial court properly sequestered Mr. Barry.
Judge WILNER has authorized me to state that he joins in the views expressed in this concurring opinion.