Opinion

State v. Phillips

  • 144 Idaho 82
  • 156 P.3d 583
  • 2007 Ida. App. LEXIS 20
Court
Idaho Court of Appeals
Filed
Mar 9, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Schwartzman
On the bench
Lansing, Schwartzman, Gutierrez
Cited by
122 cases
Authority
More cited than 0.2%

noting that “appeals to emotion, passion or pi-ejudiee of the jury through use of inflammatory tactics are impermissible”

How later courts described this case

  • noting that “appeals to emotion, passion or pi-ejudiee of the jury through use of inflammatory tactics are impermissible”
  • noting that "appeals to emotion, passion or prejudice of the jury through use of inflammatory tactics are impermissible"
  • concluding mischaracterizations or misrepresentations are objectionable
  • concluding counsel should not comment on witness credibility

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Judge Pro Tern SCHWARTZMAN,

specially concurring.

I concur in the opinion of this Court despite the fact that I feel the conventional application of harmless error standards would not necessarily mandate reversal. This case represents yet another in a long line or pattern of repetitious misconduct from this prosecutorial office. A catalogue of cases in which the doctrine of “harmless error” has reared its head and saved the conviction on appeal creates a less than enviable appellate track record. See State v. Vandenacre, 131 Idaho 507 , 960 P.2d 190 (Ct.App.1998); State v. Brown, 131 Idaho 61 , 951 P.2d 1288 (Ct.App.1998); State v. Lovelass, 133 Idaho 160 , 983 P.2d 233 (Ct.App.1999); State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561 , 21 P.3d 498 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Kuhn, 139 Idaho 710 , 85 P.3d 1109 (Ct.App.2003). Two unpublished opinions also come readily to mind: State v. Blythe, Docket No. 25557, 135 Idaho 493 , 20 P.3d 29 , 2000 WL 1344686 (Ct.App. April 7, 2000), and State v. Gadberry, Docket No. 26604/26605 (Ct.App. Sept. 26, 2001). As our own Supreme Court has noted in State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981 , 984 n. 1, 842 P.2d 660 , 663 n. 1 (1992):

Mistakes must not become the practice instead of the exception. A court on observing that a pattern of mistakes has developed, on seeing yet another “mistake,” might readily decide to view such circumstance with a jaundiced eye, and rule accordingly.

Accordingly, I too vote to overturn this conviction.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.