Court Opinion

ID: 9537787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:24:17.48975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:02.400367
License: Public Domain

NIX, Judge
(dissenting).
It is the opinion of your writer that defendant was dealt a severe and damaging blow by being the victim of an “evidential harpoon.” When the county attorney asked witness Dockray if he had not, in the presence of. Trooper Rich made the statement, “the crazy drunk s. o. b. ran over those kids,” Dockray answered “No,” and the court admonished the jury not to consider it. However, the attorney for the state, not being satisfied with an ordinary wound, asks the further question if witness heard any one else make that statement and witness answered, “someone else did.” The court once again pulled out the harpoon by admonishing the jury not to consider it — but your writer does not believe that removing the harpoon cured the wound.
The testimony was purely hearsay, wholly inadmissible, and had no place in the trial of the cause, and though the jury was properly admonished not to consider *176the same, it is most doubtful whether or not it was erased from their minds.
I am most certain the learned attorney for the state was fully' aware of the inadmissibility of the testimony he sought to inject through the back door.