Court Opinion

ID: 9563958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:51:09.769287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:09.597990
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN
(concurring specially).
I agree that the foregoing opinion finds support in previous cases of this court, but I think the court, in determining whether “without the testimony of the witness, injustice will be done” within the meaning of R.C.M. 1947, section 93-701-3, has erroneously concluded that the stronger the evidence (aside from that of the witness who testifies regarding direct transactions or oral communications with the deceased) the more certain the questionable evidence becomes admissible whereas I think for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Cox v. Williamson, 124 Mont. 512, 227 Pac. (2d) 614, that the weaker such other evidence appears the more certain the witness should be permitted to testify to avoid an injustice. I subscribe to the conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion solely on the ground-of stare decisis.