Court Opinion

ID: 8273663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-16 19:40:07.304963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:43:36.117493
License: Public Domain

Per CuRIAM.
We agree with the Supreme Court as to- the only point discussed in its opinion. It was not necessary to discuss the alleged error in excluding Hunter’s testimony, as the inquiry was afterward taken up by the state and answered. Let the judgment be affirmed.
For affirmance — Swayze, TeeNchaRd, BergeN, Ivaliscti, IyATZENBACH, WHITE, HePPENHEIMBR, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 11.
For reversal — -None.