Court Opinion

ID: 9846720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:47:02.403431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:46.223037
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result only, but would add this:
As compared to Richmond v. State, Wyo., 554 P.2d 1217, decided by this court October 8, 1976, where the only grounds for appeal was an alleged violation of the Federal Constitution, and we, on our own motion, directed this ground be abandoned in favor of a State constitutional ground which was not relied upon by the defendant — in the instant matter, the defendant has alleged both State and Federal constitutional violations 1 and again — upon our own motion— we refuse to decide the Federal issue — although properly raised — and confine our holding to the State constitutional issue.
The effect of this game plan is to deny litigants full and unhampered access to the Federal courts and particularly the United States Supreme Court, even where defend*313ants properly and carefully preserve their Federal constitutional grounds of appeal,
I disapprove of this tactic for all of the reasons indicated by my special concurrence in Richmond v. State, Wyo., 554 P.2d 1217, commencing at page 1235.

. The following is from appellant’s brief:
“Where non-compliance with the constitutionally required procedure for determining the ‘voluntariness’ of appellant’s in-custody statements, and the failure to apply the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in assessing ‘voluntariness’ violated the defendant’s rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I § 11 of the Wyoming Constitution Appellant’s conviction must be reversed.”