Court Opinion

ID: 9536166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:55:53.444172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:28.433526
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
To prove appellant killed Parquette, the State established that appellant had purchased the death weapon on the day of the homicide. Interpreted as an act of preparation, this purchase inferentially helped evidence appellant’s presence and participation in Parquette’s murder.
Attempting to prove his theory of the case, i.e. that another had killed Parquette, while he himself was elsewhere, it obviously became important for appellant to establish the innocent nature of the purchase, from which his preparation and guilt might otherwise be inferred. For this purpose, evidence corroborating appellant’s explanation that the weapon had not been purchased as preparation for Parquette’s murder, but for self-defense, was clearly relevant.
Thus, it is unclear to me how it may logically be said that the evidence in question “was simply not ‘of consequence to the determination of the action.’ ”