Court Opinion

ID: 9527328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:29:39.669756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:43.410321
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(dissenting).
In response to the question “Did the Central Bank ever confirm to you in writing or confirm to you in any manner that they had received your message about the loss of the card? ” the witness replied with considerable hearsay which included hearsay evidence that the defendant could have been involved in the theft of a television set from a motel room. Defense counsel cautioned the witness about the non-responsive hearsay answer, repeated the question, and received an affirmative answer. Defense counsel immediately asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard the previous non-responsive answer, and the court ruled: “I think it’s too late to make that request.” Bill of Exception No. 1 was reserved to that ruling. In per curiam the judge would justify his refusal to charge the jury to disregard the answer by stating that he believed it to be responsive.
Three questions are presented for a determination of the merits of this bill:
Was the answer of the witness non-responsive, unsolicited, inadmissible hearsay? The answer is “yes”.
Was the request for the court to instruct the jury to disregard the inadmissible testimony too late? The answer is “no”.
Was the response to the question prejudicial to the defendant? The answer must be "yes”.
I therefore conclude that it was the trial judge’s obligation to comply with counsel’s request and instruct the jury to disregard the inadmissible and prejudicial evidence. Bill of Exception No. 1 has merit, and I respectfully dissent.