Court Opinion

ID: 9680664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:36:14.893482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.906069
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
It is now contended that the marijuana found in the apartment was not sufficient in quantity to support a conviction.
Dr. Mason testified that the marijuana in the plastic box, State’s Exhibit No. 1, weighed 63 milligrams, which was sufficient to make a very small cigarette. This quantity was sufficient to support the conviction for the possession of marijuana.
For the first time, it is now insisted that appellant’s written statement was erroneously admitted in evidence in violation of the due process clause in that it is undisputed that he signed it after the officer taking it promised he would release appellant’s wife who was then in custody; and that the trial court again erred in not resolving the issues on the voluntary nature of the statement following an independent hearing.
The written statement is not contained in the record, its contents are not revealed, and there is no showing that the jury ever knew its contents. In the absence of the written statement, the above contentions cannot be appraised. However, the record shows that following the independent hearing, the court concluded that from the testimony said statement was voluntarily made and was admissible in evidence.
Error is urged by the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial when the state asked a question which amounted to an assertion of fact that appellant remained silent while under arrest in face of a statement that appellant had committed a prior offense.
This matter arose during the state’s examination of Officer Cavender, to-wit:
“Q What did she (appellant’s wife) say to you detective Cavender?
“A She wanted to give a statement saying the marijuana was her’s, because she could get probation and he couldn’t.
“Q Did she say anything else ?
“Appellant’s Attorney: We object to any further statement.
*783■“The Court: Sustain the objection.
“Q Was there anything else said as part of that sentence you have just told us?
■“Appellant’s Attorney: Your Honor, we object to that.
■“The Court: I think he can finish the sentence that she said.
“Q At any rate, Donald David Tuttle here, did not give a statement?
“Appellant’s Attorney: We object to that and move for a mistrial and ask that the jury be instructed not to consider it.
“State’s Attorney: Thank you, that’s all.
“The Court: I will sustain your objection, annd instruct the jury not to consider that last question and overrule your Motion for a mistrial.”
From the record as presented, the refusal of appellant’s motion for a mistrial was not error.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.