Court Opinion

ID: 9603310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:04:58.250036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:10.771927
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
I. I concur in the holding that the use of the codefendant’s written statement was a violation of the confrontation clause, and agree that this errbr was both critical and prejudicial — necessitating a reversal.
II. In my view at least one of the other assignments of error was meritorious to the point of requiring discussion. Stewart argues that the district court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal.
As the Court’s opinion notes, the testimony of the accomplice Lane was the sole evidence relied upon to place “Stewart at the store at the times testified to by Lane.” Even with the improper examination of Stewart regarding the Thomas statement before the jury, the granting or denying of Stewart’s motion was a close question and the ruling might have gone either way. With the improper examination removed from the evidence which would come before another jury, it would seem likely that the motion to direct would be granted. In connection therewith, it is observed that the trial court did instruct the jury that Lane was as a matter of law an accomplice, and there is considerable merit in Stewart’s contention that the trial court should not have allowed the jury to determine whether Watson1 was an accomplice.
III.Following Stewart’s conviction, his attorney requested probation and a withheld judgment. The trial court granted probation, but did not withhold judgment of conviction and sentence. Stewart was sentenced to five years, and but for reversal of the judgment by this Court would have forever carried the scar of being a convicted felon.
In granting the probation, the district court imposed a 60 day county jail sentence which the record shows that Stewart has served. Not only did he serve the time, but upon recommendation of the county sheriff and the county prosecuting attorney, he was allowed 10 days off from his 60 day sentence.
Where it is now the decision of this Court that the judgment of conviction is reversed, the probation is likewise terminated, as is the authority of the State Board of Corrections. There is, of course, no way to turn back the clock and restore to Stewart the fifty days of his life spent in the county jail. *188That being so, and the other questions which are above discussed being extremely close, if not outright in favor of Stewart, hopefully it will be clear to the trial court and the prosecuting attorney that reversing and remanding for a new trial is not a dictate that there must be a second trial. That is a policy determination for the trial court and the prosecution under the provisions of I.C. § 19-3504 which vests in the prosecutor and in the trial court a great deal of discretion. If Stewart has performed the remainder of his probation as well as he did the incarceration portion, and over two years having now gone by, there may not be any valid reason to continue the prosecution of this case.

. At trial, Watson testified that on the night of the burglary, Lane, Stewart and Thomas visited his trailer where he, like Stewart, heard of the • planned burglary; he asked Lane to bring him a television set. That night, Lane returned and Watson paid him $150 for a new color television set and a wall clock.