Court Opinion

ID: 9795307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:25:40.995397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:24.624215
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice EISMANN,
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion. My concurrence in Part II.A. is not an affirmation that every factor mentioned by the district court in its analysis was relevant. However, I agree that Pearce has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that Dr. Honts was not qualified to express an expert opinion on lineup procedures, based upon what was presented to the court at the time. In my opinion, the need for such testimony in this case does not enter into the analysis of whether the district court abused its discretion in making its ruling. If additional material should have been presented regarding Dr. Honts’s qualifications or another expert selected, Pearce may have a claim for post-conviction relief.