Opinion ID: 1134775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: testimony of detective mack

Text: Moore also asserts error in the admission of Detective Mack's testimony that other suspects often attend police interviews with their lawyers. This testimony had little, if any, relevance as to why Moore decided to leave Idaho, but only served to imply that innocent people attend police interviews. The trial court ruled this testimony admissible because the defense had opened the door on recross examination of Detective Mack. No where in the recross-examination is there mention of how other suspects behave when asked to attend police interviews. We therefore conclude that it was error for the court to admit this testimony. Having concluded that the testimony was erroneously admitted, we must next undertake a harmless error analysis. The test for harmless error ... is whether a reviewing court can find beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have reached the same result without the admission of the challenged evidence. Giles v. State, 125 Idaho 921, 925, 877 P.2d 365, 369 (1994). In reviewing the record, we are convinced that the jury verdict would have been the same if the challenged testimony had been excluded, and so hold the error to be harmless.