Opinion ID: 1999321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence concerning firearms.

Text: On direct examination, the district attorney asked Officer Lelinski if anything was found in the Volkswagen after the arrest. This question was objected to as irrelevant, and the objection was sustained. No testimony was elicited on direct examination as to whether the officers were armed at the time of the arrest. Officer Lelinski testified on cross-examination, however, that he approached appellants with his gun drawn and that Lieutenant Beste stood a short distance away, holding a shotgun. On redirect examination, the prosecution asked the following questions: Q. There has been some testimony here on cross-examination about a shotgun, correct? A. Yes, sir. The Court: That the lieutenant was holding a shotgun. Mr. Genrich: Q. The lieutenant had a shotgun; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were also armed, were you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was anyone else armed? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who? A. There was weapons in the automobile. Defense counsel then objected and argues on this appeal that any evidence relating to firearms in the car was irrelevant and prejudicial. We think that the evidence was properly admitted for the reason stated by the trial court in his ruling on the objection:  The Court: Well, as you know, Mr. Grace, I did sustain the objections, or in fact I was very careful not to let this into the record during direct examination. You have built up a climate or an atmosphere, however, that only the officers were in a position of doing harm with arms to the defendants. I think then the question is a proper one by the prosecution as to whether the defendants had arms also, and the objection is overruled.