Court Opinion

ID: 9586023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:06:23.760426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:18.958311
License: Public Domain

STEWART, Justice,
concurring in the result:
¶48 I concur in the majority opinion with one exception. The Court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Officer Sagendorf to testify concerning his knowledge of “officer-assisted suicide.” The majority states that “[w]hether Sagendorf had knowledge of other people provoking police officers to shoot them does not shed light on defendant’s intent or state of mind at the time of the offense.” That, of course, is literally true, but the question was clearly foundational and the line of inquiry it might have opened up was clearly relevant to the defendant’s defense. An affirmative answer might well have led to information bearing on defendant’s state of mind. If this Court, and for that matter trial courts, base relevancy rulings on such a shortsighted, literalistic view of the questions put by *187counsel, the examination of witnesses will be severely and improperly (and sometimes unconstitutionally) restricted.
¶ 49 In my view, the failure of the trial court to allow the question was, however, clearly harmless under the circumstances.