Court Opinion

ID: 9641809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:40:47.484478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.885204
License: Public Domain

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree that the error in allowing Mrs. Bailey to testify about Norton’s telephone conversation with her husband the night of the murder is such as requires a reversal of the case.
A careful examination of the statement of facts reveals that the defense objection was only to what Mrs. Bailey’s husband told her was told to him in the conversation. The objection to that was overruled and it was admitted for the limited purpose of showing Bailey’s state of mind. However, there was no objection to her statement that Norton called her husband. In fact, the defense later elicited that testimony from Mrs. Bailey on cross-examination. Thus, the testimony that Norton called Bailey on the night of the murder was properly in evidence. This evidence, together with the unobjected-to testimony that Norton called Bailey on many occasions late at night to come work for him, and Bailey’s own statement on the night of the murder that he was going to go down and help Ray, makes the additional testimony that Norton told Bailey to pick up Preston and come down to the shop harmless, in my judgment. I think this conclusion is reinforced by the defense’s failure to object when the State, in its closing argument, made the comment on motive which is quoted in Justice Grant’s opinion.
Evidence that Norton called Bailey and that Bailey told his wife he was going down to help Ray was properly admitted. Certainly this shows that Bailey’s expressed state of mind was to help Ray. I cannot see that the additional statement that Norton had called and asked him to pick up Preston and come to the store adds anything to that evidence.
Moreover, except for the oblique reference in closing argument to motive, there is no mention of Norton’s having lured the *170victims to the store, nor is there any specific reference to the complained-of testimony in argument, either by the State or the defense. In this situation, considering all the evidence, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the additional testimony was not such that it contributed to either the conviction or the punishment. I would affirm the judgment.