Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Coutts

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1980No. 12874Published

1DissentBistline, Justice

I cannot agree that the following statement by the prosecuting attorney at the sentencing hearing did not constitute reversible error:

MR. DAY [prosecutor]: “Mr. Cootz, in explaining his reasons for doing stuff today has failed to mention quite a bit that I believe should have been mentioned, for example the car that he was in control of was allegedly a stolen vehicle out of Texas, Amarillo, Texas. Allegedly his wife, just through three independent sources that I have confirmed and I believe to be viable sources, has been beaten, shot . by Mr. Cootz. When she was in town she was in mortal fear…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Gardner v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. United States v. Carmine Fatico, and Daniel FaticoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
  5. State v. GriffithsIdaho Supreme Court · 1980

11 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