Court Opinion

ID: 9712515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:55:19.607774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:12.652673
License: Public Domain

VAN der VOORT, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the Opinion of the Majority in this case except that part of said Opinion labelled part III to which I respectfully dissent.
*124John Globisch had testified in his own trial (in a case different from the instant case) that he had on June 1,1978, when in Krushinski’s apartment seen thirty (30) vials of cocaine there. In my judgment such testimony of Globisch has no relevancy at all to the drug sale offenses with which appellant is charged to have committed on the dates of April 6th and 7th, 1978.
While the trial court may have erred in refusing admission of Globisch’s transcript testimony as to the offense charged against the appellant on June 1,1978, and thereby warrant a new trial as to that offense. I believe it was correct in refusing the admission of such testimony as to the April 6th and 7th offenses.
I would affirm the convictions as to the April 6th and 7th transactions.