Court Opinion

ID: 9669982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:11:56.808758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.464913
License: Public Domain

TEIGEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
Hilling was charged and convicted of the crime of delivery of a controlled substance. No claim is made that the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hilling did deliver the controlled substance to the undercover agent. Furthermore, a review of the evidence discloses proof of delivery beyond a reasonable doubt. Delivery thereof did not take place at the sandbar but at the home to which the undercover agent was taken. The majority point out that the discrepancy between the case report and the daily report pertains to “preliminary negotiations” for the delivery at the sandbar. The purpose of the introduction of the daily report into evidence was to show the jury that the undercover agent had lied, thus attacking his credibility. This objective was accomplished when the copy of the daily report was received in evidence during the presentation of the defense case in chief, on stipulation that it was a true and accurate copy of the original. Further, Hilling’s attorney was permitted to argue and, in fact, did argue at length on this matter to the jury. The jury was perfectly cognizant that the two reports differed and that the undercover agent’s testimony differed from his daily report. Therefore the objective of the defendant to impeach was accomplished. Much credit must be given to counsel for Hilling in his persistence and, although his efforts were long and arduous, he succeeded in accomplishing his objective. For these reasons it appears to me that, even assuming the series of errors referred to by the majority all relate to the introduction into evidence of the written daily report, they were, for the reasons stated, harmless and not prejudicial to the defendant. It is more likely that the State’s case was damaged because *174the defendant prevailed in his effort to impeach.
The United States Supreme Court held in Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 82 S.Ct. 302, 7 L.Ed.2d 256 (1961), rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 979, 82 S.Ct. 476, 7 L.Ed.2d 441 (1962), and in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 79 S.Ct. 1231, 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1959), that the harmless-error rule applies to situations within the Jencks Act, and circumstances may show that there was only harmless error and that the error may also be cured by subsequent actions of the trial court. I believe that the same rule applies here. It is clear to me that, in this case, if error there was, it was cured and no prejudice to the defendant’s case has been shown. I believe that the harmless-error rule should have been applied and the judgment of conviction affirmed.
KNUDSON, J., concurs.