Court Opinion

ID: 9689304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:27:14.795205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.866093
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(concurring). I agree that defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. I would base such a result on reasons other than those expressed by the majority.
First, I would find that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of breaking and entering. While it is true that the testimony of Mr. Reese is equivocal, I think it sufficient to support a finding that the kitchen door was locked on the day in question. If it is not, I would find the error harmless as does the majority.
Second, I disagree with the majority’s determination that Bloomquist and Israels should be considered res gestae witnesses. I do not believe that the arrival of the two at the scene shortly after the crime was discovered is sufficient to support that finding. While it is true that they witnessed the aftermath of the crime, I do not think that *366they were witnesses to any part of or continuation of the criminal transaction. The crime was complete before witness Doty arrived at the scene, and the subsequent arrival of Bloomquist and Israels does not make them res gestae witnesses. If they were, I would still find, as does the majority, that any error committed by the trial court was harmless.