Opinion ID: 1762542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearsay Evidence Improperly Admitted

Text: In statements given to the arresting officers, Smith had implied that he had engaged in narcotics activities to assist Narcotics Officer Varnado. To dispel this notion, the prosecutor asked the arresting officer Taylor if he had conferred with Varnado (Yes, sir, I did), and, then, if as a result he (Taylor) had released the defendant. Taylor answered, No, sir, he hadn't helped Varnado. The defense objected to this testimony as hearsay, La.R.S. 15:463, and reserved a bill (No. 5). This bill is without merit. The trial court immediately instructed the jury to disregard this gratuitous comment by the officer, not responsive to the question. Under the circumstances, no prejudicial error was sustained. State v. Arena, 254 La. 358, 223 So.2d 832 (1969). Furthermore, immediately after this testimony, Officer Varnado was called to the stand and testified, without objection, that he had never requested Smith to purchase narcotics or to set up Kimbrough for arrest. We are unable to see how Officer Taylor's comment that Smith had not helped Officer Varnado could be prejudicial, in view of the positive, unobjected-to, direct testimony from Varnado to the same effect.