The first is State v. Morris V. Seaton; the second is State v. Donte Quintell McBride.
Seaton challenged the state's ability to introduce evidence of prior sexual assaults in a case about an alleged, unrelated sexual assault that took place at a later date.
McBride was a state challenge to a Court of Appeals decision throwing out a police search in a drug case that resulted in a McBride's conviction for drug offenses.
Both cases resulted this week in a 3-3 SCOW tie. Justice Janet Protasiewicz did not participate in either case.
The tie was good news for Mr. McBride. The tie meant that the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed. But the legal issues raised by the state went entirely undiscussed, leaving them for another day, another case.
The news in Seaton wasn't great for either side, who spent time and money briefing the case, or for the District II Court of Appeals judges who kicked it upstairs to SCOW to answer the question of "whether the bolstering of an alleged victim’s credibility or the undermining of the defendant’s credibility for that matter, which are two sides of the same coin in a case such as this, is itself a 'permissible purpose'" in deciding whether the evidence should be admitted.
"We have previously stated that when a tie vote occurs in this court on a bypass or certification, 'justice is better served in such an instance by remanding to the court of appeals for their consideration,'" SCOW said in its brief decision.
"Accordingly, we vacate our order to accept the certification and remand to the court of appeals," it concluded.
Comments