Court Opinion

ID: 9671600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:40:09.832974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:23.575756
License: Public Domain

DICE, Commissioner.
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
We have again reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing and remain convinced that a proper disposition was made of the case in our opinion delivered February 12, 1964, affirming the judgment of conviction.
The contention urged by appellant that the court’s action in permitting the state :o develop m the jury’s presence the entire conversation with Officer Gunn which led to appellant’s apprehension constituted error because he had only gone into such conversation in the absence of the jury is not borne out by the record. The record reflects that prior to the court’s action in permitting the state to develop the entire conversation, appellant, in his examination of the officer, had, in the jury’s presence, gone into a part of the conversation.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.