Court Opinion

ID: 9738840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:04:00.672326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.747264
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(concurringspecially).
I agree with the result. However, in my opinion it was error for the court to restrict the examination of the prosecuting officers and the attorney appointed to represent McCarty by which defendant undertook to prove his contention that the favorable testimony of the claimed accomplice was induced by a promise of clemency or immunity. Upon a sufficient foundation, the existence, or the probability of the existence, of any such inducement is surely a proper subject of inquiry by the defense. The record does not support excluding this inquiry on the ground of privilege. Here the defense failed to disclose to the court by way of an offer of proof or otherwise that the attempted in*324quiry was founded upon little more than a mere suspicion or possibility. Under the circumstances it would be a recognition of defendant’s rights at the expense of fairness to both sides to hold the error prejudicial.
Otis, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Rogosheske.