Court Opinion

ID: 9646663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:06:20.091763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:40.417950
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the defense witness’ inadvertent violation of the trial court’s sequestration order was not a basis for the exclusion of the witness’ testimony, and that an appropriate instruction to the jury would have sufficed. I wish to point out, however, that because of the availability of such an instruction the majority’s suggestion that a mistrial would have been a “less extreme” remedy is not necessary. In any event, a mistrial alone, without an appropriate instruction, would have no effect on the likelihood that on retrial the problem of the witness’ exposure to trial testimony would remain.
Additionally, the majority’s exploration only of whether the proposed defense testimony is irrelevant should not be viewed to pre-empt the possibility that the proffered testimony would be excludable on other traditional bases for the *86exclusion of evidence. Had the record revealed, for example,'that the witness’ testimony was inadmissible hearsay, the court’s exclusion would not have been reversible error.
Because the inadvertent violation of the sequestration order could have been cured by a proper cautionary instruction to the jury, and no independent basis has been shown to support the exclusion of the proffered testimony, appellant must be granted a new trial.