Opinion ID: 1155965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: error cured by defendant's testimony

Text: The State correctly points out that if error did occur when evidence that Feeney refused to take a sobriety test was admitted, then the error was cured when Feeney also testified to the same effect during his direct examination. Here, again, Wyoming follows the general rule that: Error in admitting evidence which has been presented by or on behalf of one party is cured where practically the same evidence or evidence having essentially the same probative effect is afterward introduced by the adverse or objecting party or is elicited on cross examination or redirect examination. 5A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1735(b). In Mullin v. State, Wyo. 505 P.2d 305 (1973), this court held that, if an error was made in admitting into evidence defendant's statement to the police, the error was harmless where defendant later testified on direct examination to all pertinent matters in the statement. See also Russell v. State, 19 Wyo. 272, 116 P. 451 (1911). In defendant's trial on charges of rape in State v. Holm, 67 Wyo. 360, 224 P.2d 500 (1950), Justice Blume wrote:    We are inclined to believe that the testimony related to a detail of the offense and the testimony should have been stricken. But it does not follow that the error was prejudicial. [Citations.] The evidence in this case is unanimous, including the testimony of the defendant himself, that three boys actually took out the complainant on the evening of July 28, 1948, the time of the alleged offense herein. So we cannot see how the error of the court could have been prejudicial. 224 P.2d at 502-503. In Brown v. Wyoming Butane Gas Co., Inc., 66 Wyo. 67, 205 P.2d 116 (1949), we said: Evidence of the alleged custom was, under the circumstances shown by the record, quite immaterial. However, both parties without objection submitted evidence in regard to the matter. The error if error there was, was harmless. 205 P.2d at 123. During Feeney's direct examination by his attorney, the following dialogue occurred: Q. Did you have any difficult time in communicating or speaking to the officers in any way? A. None at all really. There wasn't a whole lot of words talked. Except at the police station, when he asked me to do a sobriety test which I said, you already arrest me and I won't do it. Consequently, any contended error in the evidence admission by the State would be absolved by the subsequent introduction of the similar testimony by defendant. We conclude that the trial court correctly disregarded the questioned evidence in announcing that that testimony would not be considered. There was sufficient evidence introduced to support the conviction, and the defendant cured any error by his presentation of the evidence which he had earlier claimed to be inadmissible. We need not reach the Fifth Amendment question raised by appellant in his brief in affirming the conviction. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. City of Riverton, Fremont County, 70 Wyo. 84, 247 P.2d 660 (1952). Affirmed.