Court Opinion

ID: 9795719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:36:58.386734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:34:50.089803
License: Public Domain

LEHMAN, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[187] I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that the introduction of the Hanson videotape into evidence was error. I do not agree, however, that a "massive amount of evidence" exists to support the majority's conclusion that the error was harmless.
[188] The facts set forth in the majority opinion discuss the contrasting stories of the appellant and the only witness, Hanson. The "massive amount of evidence" referred to by the majority is simply the physical evidence at the scene of the erime. No one other than Hanson and the appellant testified as having actually observed the events that transpired on the evening in question. Therefore, it was the videotape, which the judge instructed the jury was for the "limited purposes of evaluating the eredibility of the declarant, Mr. Hanson," that provided the jury a court-approved vehicle to examine for a second time Hanson's versions of the events. This bolstering of Hanson's credibility certainly cannot be dismissed as harmless error in a trial that amounted to a "swearing match" between Hanson and the appellant.