Court Opinion

ID: 9553073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:21:38.738689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:38.742564
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, J.,
concurring.
I join in the majority’s disposition of this case. I wish to add an additional ground, not mentioned by the majority.
Part of Tellez’ testimony would allegedly be to the effect that defendant does not use or sell drugs and that he was not even aware of the presence in his room of the drugs that are the gravamen of the present case. The difficulty with such proffered testimony is that, however couched, it is not — and *597could not be — admissible. It would be absurd to read United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 US 858, 102 S Ct 3440, 73 L Ed 2d 1193 (1982), as requiring a new trial on such a showing, and I do not so read it.
I agree with the majority that it is not plausible that Tellez would otherwise incriminate herself. I therefore concur.
Joseph, C. J., and Richardson and Warden, JJ, join in this concurring opinion.