Court Opinion

ID: 9541728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:28:07.757085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:34.419699
License: Public Domain

CARDINE,
Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I was not a member of the court when this writ of certiorari was issued in the first instance. Had I been, I would have opposed it being granted. We are asked here to overturn a preliminary ruling by a trial court on an evidentiary question. That is an exercise in futility. It is a waste of this court’s time and limited resources.
Should we reverse the court’s ruling and this case go to trial, I do not know what would prevent the court, after hearing additional testimony and receiving evidence, from, in the exercise of its discretion, excluding this evidence because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or excluding this evidence for any of a myriad of other reasons.
The complaint in this case was filed December 22, 1982. There followed a preliminary hearing, motions, Order for Pretrial Conference, and Order Suppressing Evidence. The case was set for trial June 13, 1983. The granting of writ of certiorari and appeal from the Order Suppressing Evidence prevented the trial. The result is delay, inefficiency in disposition of the case and further crowding of the court’s docket. In the future, trial courts, for the sake of efficiency, may simply take these motions under advisement and rule upon them after the commencement of trial. For these reasons, I believe we should avoid, whenever possible, involvement in evidentiary rulings and preliminary matters at the trial level.
With respect to Justice Thomas’ opinion in this case, I agree with his analysis of the law and the result. However, were I considering this writ in the first instance, I would not have favored it being granted.