Court Opinion

ID: 9538783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:41:37.09181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:09.705229
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results.
I concur in the Court’s decision to reverse and remand this case for a new trial. However, I disagree with the Court’s resolution of Appellant’s second proposition of error. Appellant has failed to show the relevance of the nature of S.L.’s prior juvenile offenses and contemporary psychological examinations. I fail to see the nexus between the subject matter of the underlying offenses reflected in S.L.’s prior record, and his mental condition at the time, to the issues of bias in this case. The record shows Appellant’s right to confrontation was not abridged by the court’s ruling as he was able to conduct a meaningful cross-examination of S.L. Defense counsel asked S.L. if his father supported him when he got into trouble with the law, whether his father’s response made him mad, whether it was true S.L. hated his father and whether S.L. found it unbearable to live with his father. Defense counsel exposed the fact that S.L. had made up the fact that his father had told him that the man he hired to kill the victim left town. Based upon this record, neither the nature of S.L.’s prior juvenile record nor Davis v. Alaska and Bowman v. State cited by Appellant are relevant.
Further, the opinion incorrectly says the State conceded the argument. While the State may not have specifically rebutted each ease argued by Appellant, it certainly did not concede the issue.