Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: The denial of the motion to strike the testimony of the witness Vasquez.

Text: The defendant Rodriguez says the State, by leading questions containing the desired answers, obtained responses from the witness Vasquez which were prejudicial. In the next breath he asserts: The witness Marcelino Vasquez in his testimony did not testify to any material fact in spite of the leading questions asked by the State. Assuming the truth of the last hypothesis made by the defendant, it is axiomatic that no error prejudicial to him could therefor have occurred. Resorting to the record, however, the factual situation appears otherwise than as conceived by counsel. Vasquez identified Rodriguez as having been in the decedent's restaurant together with Vega on the night preceding the crime. The purpose of his testimony was to show both these defendants had visited and were familiar with the restaurant which was robbed on the following day. It had a direct bearing upon material elements of the crime charged. Its admission was proper and there was no error in refusing to strike it.