There are two other aspects of this opinion well worth noting. First is that Reinke was "resubmitted," which resulted in De Muniz's and Durham's exclusion from participating in the court'sdecision.Second is that the court doesn't reconcile its decision in State v. Upton, which squarely holds that "enhancement facts" are "material elements" under state law and, therefore, that the trial court erred in striking such facts from the indictment.
Comments
There are two other aspects of this opinion well worth noting. First is that Reinke was "resubmitted," which resulted in De Muniz's and Durham's exclusion from participating in the court'sdecision.Second is that the court doesn't reconcile its decision in State v. Upton, which squarely holds that "enhancement facts" are "material elements" under state law and, therefore, that the trial court erred in striking such facts from the indictment.