Court Opinion

ID: 9553125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:22:38.008287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:45.753741
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would hold that the warrant was properly issued. The information supplied in Officer Deutsch’s affidavit was at least minimally adequate to permit the magistrate to evaluate the credibility of hearsay statements attributed to Kignak. In reaching the opposite conclusion, the majority of the court is, I believe, unduly skeptical of the information set out under oath in the affidavit and walks too readily in the shoes of the magistrate, to whom, at this stage, considerable deference is owed.
Since I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Lucy Clark’s refusal to open the footlocker, and since in my judgment that error cannot be deemed harmless as to her, I concur in the court’s decision to reverse Lucy Clark’s conviction. However, the erroneously admitted evidence related almost exclusively to the issue of Lucy Clark’s knowledge and intent. It could have had no significant impact on the jury’s verdict as to Richard Clark; I would find the error harmless as to Richard Clark and affirm his conviction.
Accordingly, I concur with the court’s decision to reverse Lucy Clark’s conviction but dissent from its decision to reverse as to Richard Clark.