Court Opinion

ID: 9768949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:58:49.341924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:50.708666
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
The State concedes _in their brief that the conduct of the prosecutor cannot be condoned, but argues that the trial court’s instruction cured the error. I do not agree. In order that there might be no doubt about what occurred, the colloquy in question, between the prosecutor and a police officer, is set forth below:
“Q All right, [appellant’s trial attorney’s name] has also asked you about some of these theaters; in your line of work, did you have occasion to try to get information as to who is the actual — who are the actual owners of these theaters?
A Yes, we have found several owners of different theaters.
Q And had to file cases on both owners and employees of these movie houses and theaters?
A Yes, I can think of one time we have.
Q And have you come across any information which led you to believe that [appellant’s trial attorney’s name] has a financial interest?
A Yes, sir.”
The objection then followed. This clearly reflects reversible error.
I concur in the reversal of this conviction.