Court Opinion

ID: 9689359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:28:48.798377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:47.275210
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Justice
(dissent).
The majority states that appellant “inferentially” makes a clearly erroneous argument. I do not agree. Appellant argues:
Are the admissions, if admissible, of one who is wrong in many of his other statements, who is confused and disoriented, sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the automobile, particularly when the testimony of the only witness who saw the individuals in the automobile raises a doubt as to the accuracy of *127those admissions? We submit that such admissions, being the only evidence that the Defendant was driving the automobile are not sufficient to prove his guilt, (emphasis in original)
Since appellant clearly raises the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, the majority errs in refusing to review the evidence to determine if the State has proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The majority is also wrong in concluding that substantial rights of appellant were not prejudiced when the trial court based its conclusion of guilt on two separate findings that appellant never denied he was driving the car. The majority states that these findings were merely “factual observations” which did not place an unlawful burden on appellant. I also think these findings were factual observations but that they were impermissible factual observations which were relied on by the trial court as a basis for its conclusion of guilt. This court would surely reverse if a trial court allowed a jury to consider, in arriving at a verdict, their “factual observation” that a defendant had not testified in his own defense. How can we allow a judge to do what is denied to a jury.