Court Opinion

ID: 9511867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:08:59.887275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:12.848636
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY,
specially concurring.
¶35 Having signed the Court’s opinion, I write separately to make a point I believe is of critical importance.
¶36 In this case, defense counsel made three objections to Zylawy’s testimony about the test results. After the third objection, and without ruling on it, the District Court intervened and inquired whether Zylawy was certified to administer breath tests; Zylawy said he was, and the court overruled Pol’s objection.
¶37 It is my view that the District Court’s intervention in aid of the State’s efforts to lay an adequate foundation was entirely inappropriate. Courts are obligated to be impartial and neutral. In situations such as presented here, the court’s sole job was to rule on defense counsel's objection. Instead, it weighed in on behalf of the prosecution and, having done so, overruled the objection. In doing so, I believe the District Court violated the most fundamental principles which separate judges from parties and which define our system of justice.
JUSTICE NELSON joins in the foregoing special concurrence of CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY.