Court Opinion

ID: 9600347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:26:05.452256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:04.154780
License: Public Domain

*463MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(specially concurring).
On the first appeal of this case I disagreed with the majority opinion. State v. Hale, 126 Mont. 326, 249 Pac. (2d) 495. At that time no question was considered as to the sufficiency of the information. When the case was remanded for new trial, defendant's counsel asked and was granted leave of the court to withdraw the plea of not guilty and to file a demurrer questioning the sufficiency of the informaiton.
On the second appeal I wrote the opinion cited by the Chief Justice in his dissenting opinion. Two of the justices dissented from what I wrote and the Chief Justice agreed only with the result reached in my opinion.
On Petition for Rehearing filed by Worden & Worden as counsel for defendant, that opinion was in legal effect withdrawn because the petition for rehearing was granted in an order signed by all members of the court. I signed that order because of doubts which I had about the correctness of the opinion.
Upon further study of the case after the rehearing was had I am persuaded that the opinion of Mr. Justice Davis is correct and supported by logic as well as adjudicated cases therein cited.