Court Opinion

ID: 9856490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:48:18.26733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:50.753905
License: Public Domain

McQUADE, Justice
(dissenting).
Underlying our principles of criminal law is the basic premise that a defendant shall have a fair and impartial trial. Prejudice and bias are to be prohibited and expunged to accomplish the fundamental concept that a defendant shall not be convicted upon evidence which does not prove or disprove the essential elements of the crime with which he is charged. It is elementary to say that a jury may be prejudiced by a defendant’s background of former convictions. To this end there have been many rules safeguarding the trial of an accused which prevent the introduction of former convictions excepting under certain circumstances.
In this trial the police officer in three separate statements referred to the defend*59•ant’s criminal record. These utterances were made under the guise that a conversation had been had with the defendant and were portions thereof. They do not go to proof of the charge against the defendant and where objected to were properly stricken by the court.
It is said in 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 734(2), p. 1082:
“* * or where he follows the denial with an admission of certain facts, the statement and the reply thereto may be received and considered against him to the extent that he admits the truth of the charge, the admission being evidence, and the statement not being direct' evidence but admissible only in connection with the reply.”
In 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 735, p. 1085, it is said:
“ * * * nor should the state be permitted to introduce portions of the conversation which do not relate to the offense charged.”
In denying a new trial the court permitted prejudicial statements to influence the jury. Being inflammatory and prejttdicial in nature it was reversible error to continue with the trial of the case.
To this extent I dissent from the majority opinion.