Court Opinion

ID: 9877012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:45:05.441121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:17.541362
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE,
DISSENTING:
¶ 59. I dissent. However, because I feel the opinions have overly complicated the issue, I write separately. Do not misunderstand, I enjoy diagramming and parsing sentences as much as the next person.7 In *304this case, it is just not necessary. The principle that controls in this case is simple. If you confess to a crime, and that confession is not coerced or otherwise induced by law enforcement or some state actor, then you cannot recover under the statute. This is the exact situation that the language “fabricate evidence to bring about his conviction” is meant to prevent.
¶ 60. To be clear, a confession that is coerced by law enforcement or some state actor would not prohibit a cause of'action under the statute. That is because, in such a scenario, the State would be guilty of some type of wrongdoing. In Edmonds’s case, the State has done nothing wrong and logic would dictate it should not be answerable to Edmonds.
¶ 61. To hold otherwise basically gives the phrase “fabricate evidence to bring about his conviction” no meaning. There is always an ulterior motive other than being convicted. It does not take much of an. imagination to think of egregious results that can occur under the majority’s opinion.
¶ 62. To conclude, this is the exact case the language “fabricate evidence to bring about his conviction” is meant to prohibit, and therefore, I dissent.
RANDOLPH, P.J., MAXWELL AND BEAM, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.

. Sarcasm is "the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say.” Sarcasm, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.