Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Hodges

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 19, 1983No. 14203Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

Although the Court’s opinion in general correctly portrays the issues and the underlying facts, I am unable to subscribe to the view that contaminating a jury trial by exhibiting the accused’s silence is in the same category as error in admitting evidence. Inadmissible evidence was the problem which we considered in State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387, 630 P.2d 674 (1981). Evidence may be inadmissible for any number of reasons, some of which are not based on constitutional grounds. In State v. LaMere, 103 Idaho 839, 655 P.2d 46 (1982), the Court there, too, failed to draw a distinction between…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API