Court Opinion

ID: 9862048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:58:52.753753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:57.929784
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in holding that the statement by Detective Hilligoss that he obtained information that appellant had participated in a robbery, which information led him to include appellant's picture in a photographic array to be presented to the victim of the robbery, is reversible error.
I believe Judge Buchanan's opinion is 'eorrect in observing that the testimony, although containing out-of-court statements by a third party, was introduced primarily to explain why a particular course of action was taken. All that Detective Hilligoss's testimony does is tell the *164jury that at some time during the investigation appellant became a suspect. I would presume that such fact would be obvious to a jury in any criminal prosecution. Detective Hilligoss made no attempt to describe how his informant came about the information or what caused that person to believe that appellant might have been involved. I would deny transfer in this case.
Assuming that the State will be required to try appellant again, due to the reversal by the majority of this Court, I concur with the majority that retrial is proper and not subject to a claim of double jeopardy.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.