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:
Eva REHNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Baxter RICE, Individually and as Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the State of California, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 77-2409.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 1983.
Decided Oct. 3, 1983.
Stephan V. Quesenberry, Seattle, Wash., Art Bunce, Escondido, Cal., Indian Legal Services, for Rehner.
William R. Winship, Jr., Alan S. Meth, San Diego, Cal., argued, for Rice; Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., on brief.
Before BROWNING, CHOY, GOODWIN, WALLACE, KENNEDY, TANG, FARRIS, PREGERSON, POOLE, CANBY, REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rice v. Rehner, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 3291, 77 L.Ed.2d 961 (1983), reversing and remanding 678 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.1982), the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint 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