State v. Barmon

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,

specially concurring in part; dissenting in part.

I concur with the majority that defendant is entitled to a new trial, but not for the reason stated. I reject the majority’s analysis of the suppression issue and would agree with the trial court that defendant’s statements are admissible.1 A new trial is required, however, because the trial judge committed reversible error by communicating with the jury in defendant’s absence.

The suppression issue, as framed by defendant in this court, reflects the way the issue was litigated at trial; i.e., whether defendant’s statements…