Court Opinion

ID: 9732757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:33:49.993998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:32.752054
License: Public Domain

Kelly, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur with the holding of the majority opinion that the prosecutor’s argument constituted prejudicial misconduct. While I agree that it is normally the duty of the trial court to resolve disputed questions of fact in determining the admissibility of evidence at a Rasmussen *542hearing, it- might not always be necessary to do so. It is possible that the evidence might be admissible regardless of the differences in testimony. Conceivably, if the bicycle and saddlebag were being temporarily impounded for safekeeping, the contraband might be admissible, depending on all the facts and circumstances, no matter whose testimony-is found to be the more creditable. Compare, City of St. Paul v. Myles, 298 Minn. 298, 218 N. W. 2d 697 (1974). I would remand on the ground that the argument -of the prosecution taken as a whole was reversible error and because the trial court did not pass upon the admissibility of the evidence at the Rasmussen hearing. Furthermore, it is preferable that the trial court make findings of fact. If the police officers’ version is accepted, more delicate constitutional issues will be avoided.
Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.