State v. Cofield , 238 Wis. 2d 467 ( 2000 )

SCHUDSON, J.

¶ 15. (concurring). Although I agree that the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, I write separately because I depart from the majority opinion in several ways.

¶ 16. First, I believe the majority opinion fails to provide an adequate factual or legal analysis to explain and support our conclusion.

¶ 17. Second, I reject the State's arguments on the merits; unlike the majority, I do not rely on waiver. See Majority at ¶ 11.

¶ 18. Third, I disagree with the majority's decision to "decline to address" the issue of whether the trial court "erred when it refused to undertake an in camera review of the victim's mental health records." See Majority at ¶ 1 n.l. The record on that issue is complete; the merits have been fully briefed; the proper resolution is clear. The trial court erred. On remand, it must undertake the in camera review. Should the next trial court repeat the error by failing to do so, and should Cofield be convicted again, we would have to reverse for a third trial. The parties and the trial court need to know our determination of that issue now.

¶ 19. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.