Court Opinion

ID: 9761657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:49:04.251142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:25.235866
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent to the reversal of this conviction, because appellant failed to object *304when the fruits of the search were admitted into evidence at the trial.
Never before today has this Court held that an objection made at the time of a pre-trial suppression hearing will carry over to the trial when the suppression hearing was held earlier than on the day of the trial. See Graves v. State, supra.
The reason for this limitation is to insure that the questions presented and the objections made earlier are fresh in the trial court’s mind. Further, although the trial court held that certain evidence was admissible at the earlier hearing, the facts presented at the trial may require a different ruling. From a practical standpoint, this new rule requires a trial court to object himself, without any word from counsel, when certain testimony is offered. Would not reason and sound judicial practice require that the trial court be given a second opportunity to pass upon the admissibility of controversial evidence.
I vigorously dissent to the new rule this day promulgated.