Court Opinion

ID: 9611966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:01:54.858598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:02.710570
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which reverses the judgments of conviction of the defendant for burglary and assault with a dangerous weapon. I concur in the opinion of the majority insofar as it reverses the judgment of conviction of the defendant on the charge of recidivism. The sole point of reversal of the conviction of the instant crimes with which defendant was charged is on the ground that “the trial court should not permit the prosecuting attorney to comment on the defendant’s failure to testify at his preliminary hearing.” The majority opinion points out that the defendant was questioned in respect to his failure to disclose an alibi at a preliminary hearing. The majority opinion stated that such deprived defendant of a fair trial in that this information should not have been made available to the jury. I agree that the function of the preliminary hearing is only to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed it. I point out, however, that the defendant also assigned as error by the trial court the questioning of the defendant as to the specific nature of his prior felony convictions. The majority opinion indicated that the propriety of that cross-examination would not be considered on appeal since the defense made no objection to such questioning at the time of trial. I can perceive no more reason for considering the assignment of error regarding the lack of testimony on behalf of the defendant at the preliminary hearing when such line of questioning was not objected to by the defendant at the time of trial. The authorities supplied in the majority opinion for this theory are adequate to support the above statement.
Insofar as the reversal of the recidivism conviction is concerned, I agree with what is inherently the basis for the majority opinion, i. e., that direct methods of proving prior convictions of one accused of recidivism are readily available to the State and should be used in preference to the “thin” proof used at trial herein of the previous convictions.