What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Michael GETCHEL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-3048.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 1972.
Roger S. Hanson (argued), of Hanson & Milman, Beverly Hills, Cal., David Unrot, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
William C. Smitherman, U. S. Atty., James M. Wilkes, James E. Mueller, Asst. U. S. Attys., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOORE, MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Leonard P. Moore, Senior Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Larry M. Getchel appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial (Caleb R. Layton, D.J.) for the illegal importation of marijuana (28i/2 pounds) and hashish (3 grams) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. Indictment, Count II. Count I, charging conspiracy, was dismissed.
Appellant primarily challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession or knowledge of illegal importation of the narcotics. He claims that the evidence was entirely circumstantial and did not justify submission to the jury.
The chain of circumstantial evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:
Appellant, with another person, entered the United States from Mexico at Lukesville, Arizona, in a camper (pickup truck). Suspicious circumstances caused customs officials to follow the truck. Later that night the same truck was observed on a road closely paralleling a Mexican highway. The lights were turned off and when customs officials attempted to stop the vehicle it sped up, forcing an Agent off the road. Something fell or was thrown from the back of the camper. It proved to be a large sack and smaller boxes containing marijuana and hashish. The camper was discovered abandoned off the highway in the desert. Tennis shoe footprints led to Ajo, Arizona, where in the train yard were found the same tennis shoe tracks and a night bag which had been run over by a train. The Agent pursued the daily copper train out of Ajo, found the appellant on it, and arrested him. His shoes matched the footprints found around the abandoned camper. In his jacket pocket was marijuana debris and in his shirt the keys to the camper.
From the witness stand appellant gave a version of his activities quite at variance with the Government’s proof. Appraisal of the many inconsistencies in his testimony was for the jury. Attempted flight was also a factor to which the jury was entitled to give consideration. (Shorter v. United States, 412 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1969); Rossetti v. United States, 315 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1963).)
As to illegal importation, the Government identified the marijuana as having originated in South America. Appellant’s effort to disassociate himself from marijuana and the camper failed. The trial court’s charges correctly stated the law. No exceptions were taken.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4