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:
Michael LEE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 13980.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 7, 1958.
Decided Jan. 30, 1958.
Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Fred L. McIntyre, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Victor W. Caputy, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, and Fahy and Danaher, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, and carrying a dang*erous weapon. D.C.Code (1951) §§ 22-501, 22-502, 22-3204. We had reversed a previous conviction, for reasons not here pertinent, and remanded for a new trial. Lee v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 235 F.2d 219. The new trial has now been held. We find no error affecting substantial rights.
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