Court Opinion

ID: 9545239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:08:46.439007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:22.997796
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice,
specially concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the result reached, however, I disagree with both the majority and dissenting opinions.
The majority holds that the magistrate erred in refusing to allow the prosecutor to re-open after both sides had the opportunity to present evidence, had rested and had made argument. Such a decision is clearly within the discretion of the presiding judge. The majority speculates as to a number of matters that the prosecutor might have been able to prove which might have buttressed the State’s case. The majority forthrightly sets forth the prosecutor’s statement in support of his motion to reopen and I believe the prosecutor and this Court is and should be bound by the extent of that statement. I see nothing contained therein which necessarily should have convinced the magistrate, the district court or this Court that such proffered testimony “as to their ability to maneuver and main*808tain their position” was relevant on the question of reducing the charge.
While the majority discusses the question of fairness to the State, I believe equally important is the doctrine of fairness to the defendant. We do not know and the record does not disclose what witnesses the defendant may have had available who could testify as to the quantum of intoxication of the participants. We do not know and the record does not disclose whether the defendant might have been unfairly prejudiced in having possible witnesses dismissed at the conclusion of the State’s case and therefore unable to testify if the State had been allowed to re-open. Admittedly, such is blatant speculation, but no less so is much of the State’s argument.