Ostwald v. State

At the outset of this dissent I must reject the view of the majority that the sweep of statements in Norton1 and Siebold 2 “is deceiving.” I must also reject the majority view that Linkletter'3 “laid to rest as out of tune with the times the concept of Norton * * *While Chicot,4 a case involving the invalidity of a state statute, states that the observations of Norton “must be taken with qualifications,” which statement is reiterated in Linkletter, I believe that the Siebold rule has been recognized, accepted, and applied by this Court in Miskimins v. Shaver, 8 Wyo. 392, 58 P. 411, 49 L.R.A.…