There was not much law made good or bad this week at the Court of Appeals. All of the issues were pretty straightforward and easy decisions for the Court. Unfortunately, all of them were easy decisions in favor of the State. The State won all 10 criminal decisions.
Not surprisingly, the lone exception I take with the opinions comes from Pamplin v. State. Pamplin was written by Judge Abramson. The appellant argued at trial that the prosecuting attorney should not be permitted to inform the jury about parole eligibility because it was not relevant and the prosecuting attorney did not know what he was talking about. On appeal, the appellant argued the information was improper and misleading. Judge Abramson found the argument to fall within the rule against changing argument on appeal. I do not agree. I think this is an extension of the same argument. It might be said with more legalese but it is the same argument. Granted, I think the same result would be reached regardless. However, I cannot support a judge going out of his or her way to avoid having to address the merits of a case.