Court Opinion

ID: 9863766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:53:47.083866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:16.961372
License: Public Domain

MOORE, P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the foregoing opinion except in so far as it relates to the attempted voir dire of Officer Bowers. During the course of the trial, Police Officer Bowers was placed upon the stand by the district attorney to testify to certain confessions by the defendant.
Prior to his recital of the statements made and acts done by the defendants, counsel for the defendants undertook to ascertain upon a voir dire the circumstances under which the defendant was arrested and the circumstances surrounding his treatment prior to his confessions to the police and his accompanying of the officers to the scenes of his crimes. Objections were sustained to a number of such questions.
Such rulings were error. It is always pertinent for the defendant’s counsel to inquire into such circumstances in order that the court may be advised whether or not any force or other menace was exercised upon the defendant to induce his confession. But no damage was done by the ruling for the reason that the testimony of the officer disclosed no confession and the statements made by said defendant were not prejudicial to the appellants.
Wood, J., concurred.
A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 24, 1940. Edmonds, J., Carter, J., voted for a hearing.