Court Opinion

ID: 9573831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:59:44.083094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:25.679383
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice.
I concur in the result, being of the opinion that the record does not disclose the knowing use of perjured testimony by the prosecution, nor a suppression of evidence which would constitute a denial of due process to the defendant. However, I must disagree with the main opinion insofar as it intimates or suggests that the testimony of the psychiatrist as to the defendant’s sexual proclivities was properly admitted at the special writ hearing, or that it might have been admissible at the trial had the issue of sodomy been raised.1
HENRIOD, J., concurs in the views expressed in the opinion of CALLISTER, J.

. Wharton, Criminal Evidence, 12th Ed., Sec. 929; State v. Sinnott, 24 N.J. 408, 132 A.2d 298; cf. People v. Jones, 42 Cal. 2d 219, 266 P.2d 38, which is criticized in 102 U. of Pa.L.R. 980.