Court Opinion

ID: 9580151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:02:23.643834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:04.414570
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur on Issue 1 but dissent on Issue 2. The majority opinion provides in part:
The fact that an attorney testifies in a criminal case against a former client, over the objection of that former client, threatens to cast a shadow of impropriety over the judicial proceedings.... [Bjecause of the sensitive nature of the relationship between attorney and client, we pause to *486urge that in future cases prosecuting attorneys should use other means to identify the defendant.
I believe that the procedure in question placed the defendant in a contemptuous light by pitting his prior attorneys against him. It was unduly prejudicial to the defendant and thereby gave the State an unfair advantage. If it is not against the letter of public policy, it is certainly against the spirit. I would hold that it is a clear abuse of discretion unless there were no other legal means to prove identity.