Court Opinion

ID: 9836629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:36.868957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.395657
License: Public Domain

EFFRON, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
I disagree with the majority’s theory that consideration of the entire conversation between appellant and the confidential informant was necessary in order to understand the context of two admissions made in the course of the conversation. Ample evidence of the context already had been introduced through the confidential informant’s testimony. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to admit into evidence the statements involving uncharged misconduct in order to understand the admissible portions of the conversation. Nonetheless, I agree with the majority’s view that any error in this case was rendered harmless by the substantial weight of appellant’s admissions regarding the charged offenses.