State v. Haynes (Concurrence & Dissent)

Summary

Justice Ecker concurred in parts II and III but dissented from part I, arguing that the state constitution should permit impeachment with an unlawfully obtained Miranda statement only when the statement directly contradicts the defendant's trial testimony. He concluded that the prosecutor used the suppressed statement to expose mere inconsistencies and omissions, improperly undermining the defendant's credibility on his extreme emotional disturbance defense, and that the resulting constitutional error was not harmless. Justice Ecker would have remanded for a new trial.