Court Opinion

ID: 9741130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:49:51.608142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:51.891405
License: Public Domain

M. S. Coleman, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur with the majority opinion with the exception of VI concerning the fact that one *496Harry Thompson was not present to testify at trial.
Although it appears, that defendant and his counsel had decided at trial not to call Mr. Thompson, the circuit judge heard a motion for a new trial at which time appellate counsel, different from trial counsel, took testimony regarding the same omission. In neither case did counsel see fit to produce Mr. Thompson.
Primarily because a hearing was held and testimony taken post trial concerning the same issue, I do not think it appropriate to remand for still another post-trial hearing on the subject.