Court Opinion

ID: 9884311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:52:13.028965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:37.612971
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, specially concurring: I concur in the result reached by the majority but do not agree with all that was said in the opinion. I do not interpret the statement of the experienced public defender to mean that the State had violated the constitution by indicting the defendant, nor am I persuaded that the able trial judge acquiesced in any such assertion. I interpret the statement to mean that defendant’s constitutional rights were violated, not because he was indicted, but because he was not granted a prompt preliminary hearing. In my opinion the second paragraph of section 7 of article I of the constitution is a simple provision, and was included for the sole purpose of guaranteeing that a defendant would not be held in custody or on bail without a prompt showing of probable cause. In this case the requisite probable cause was shown by the prompt indictment of the defendant and I agree that the trial court erred in its judgment.