State v. Robles — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

Justice Mullins agrees with the court's resolution of the confrontation claim but disagrees with its treatment of the weapon-in-a-motor-vehicle conviction. She would treat any misuse of the felony stipulation as unpreserved evidentiary or trial error, not as a sufficiency defect, and would consider the stipulation in reviewing the evidence. She concludes that the stipulation established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could not have possessed a proper firearm permit. Justice D’Auria, concurring in part and dissenting in part, likewise would affirm the judgment in all respects on substantially the same grounds.