Court Opinion

ID: 9625022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:25:11.346231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:59.532571
License: Public Domain

Justice Exum
dissenting.
I cannot agree that the error in sustaining the state’s objection to the admission of Judge Grist’s 30 January 1976 order was harmless. Defendant had the burden of proof on his insanity defense — always a heavy burden in a criminal trial. Judge Grist’s order finding defendant mentally incapable of proceeding to trial was, as the majority recognizes, probative of the issue and should have been admitted. It is true that defendant offered other evidence on the question. Who knows, however, how much evidence it takes to persuade a jury? They might well have been persuaded by the evidence offered plus the evidence which defendant should have been allowed to offer but which the trial judge improperly kept out.
In both State v. Duncan, 244 N.C. 374, 93 S.E. 2d 421 (1956) and McCully v. State, 141 Ark. 450, 217 S.W. 453 (1920), this kind of error was held prejudicial entitling defendant to a new trial. I vote for a new trial in this case.