Opinion ID: 2512108
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Burglary gloves suggestion.

Text: Rosia testified that, when told a male around 14 years old had died in the shed fire in her backyard on December 24, 1983, she first feared it was defendant, who was then 16 years old. The prosecutor reminded her that, assuming this was the correct date of the fire, defendant was then in jail for committing a burglary, [was] he not? Defense counsel did not object, and Rosia answered that she thought it was a probation violation. The prosecutor then asked, Incidentally, in February of 1984 did you ever receive or go and pick up the gloves that [defendant] used in the burglary from my office? Before Rosia could respond, defense counsel objected on grounds of irrelevance. The court sustained the objection, and the prosecutor moved on to other topics. We do not condone the prosecutor's effort to insinuate defendant's commission of an unproven burglary. However, given the brief nature of the episode, and the court's prompt response, we cannot conclude defendant was harmed.