Following Cole, Alaska Supreme Court viewed problem of requisite instruction as a "judicial choice.”
How later courts described this case
- Following Cole, Alaska Supreme Court viewed problem of requisite instruction as a "judicial choice.”
- "the purpose of the voir dire examination is to enable the attor neys to elicit such information as to develop a rational basis for the exercise of challenges for cause or peremptory challenges”
- "the purpose of the voir dire examination is to enable the attor *587 neys to elicit such information as to develop a rational basis for the exercise of challenges for cause or peremptory challenges”
- "This appeal makes it mandatory that this Court choose between ...”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dethmers, J.
(concurring). I concur with Mr. Justice Thomas M. Kavanagh that in this matter we should reverse and remand for new trial for the first reason stated in his opinion, namely that the “sum total of the people’s proofs whereby they attempt to establish defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt * * * was wholly inadequate to render any opinions of the lay witnesses as being competent under the law” as in his opinion set forth and stated. I disagree with the second reason stated *723 in that opinion. I am unwilling to follow in this case Lyles v. United States (1957), 103 US App DC 22 (254 F2d 725). For my position in this respect I find adequate citation of authority and reasoning in Mr. Justice T. M. Kavanagh’s opinion and regret that he did not choose to follow it.
T. E. Brennan, C. J., concurred with Dethmers, J.