Opinion ID: 2124058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State witness' testimony

Text: A witness for the prosecution testified that a man she saw in the park around the time of the Cooksey murder was rough looking, and untrustworthy, and that he looked like he had been around the block, so to speak, several times. She further testified that when she saw the man, she had a feeling that he had just relieved himself or that he had raped someone. Finally, she testified on cross examination that she guessed the man's age to be in his 40s or 50s at the time she talked to the police. Appellant asserts that her testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial. On the contrary, her testimony was very relevant because, at the approximate time of the murder, she saw a man come through the grass and get on a blue bike that fit the description of appellant's bike. She also testified to the clothes he wore. If there was any prejudice from this testimony it should be regarded as harmless error, especially in light of the witness' admission that she thought the man she saw was in his 40s or 50s, and appellant is 24.