McBrain v. State

I agree in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction but would modify his sentence due the State’s renunciation of the stipulation and the prejudicial effect of the introduction of the specific charges for which appellant was being held.

The general rule with regard to the use and effect of a stipulation in a subsequent trial is that it is a binding agreement between the parties. See, e.g., United States v. Marino, 617 F.2d 76, 82 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1915, 100 S.Ct. 575, 66 L.Ed.2d 474 (1980); Kilfoyle v. Heyison, 417 F.Supp. 239 (W.D.Penn.1976); Sevigny v. City of Biddeford,…