Court Opinion

ID: 9665323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:44:50.684169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.523001
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
TATUM, Judge.
The defendant has filed an earnest petition to rehear in which he states that denial of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation requires an automatic reversal even though the evidence adduced was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as that term is defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). In support of this contention, the defendant cites Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 88 S.Ct. 748, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065,13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); and Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963). However, for reasons stated in the main opinion, we adhere to our view that the evidence of records showing that the defendant and the victim had gonorrhea made no contribution to the conviction and therefore, reversal is not required. This case is controlled by Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). In Harrington, the defendant was deprived of his right of confrontation by the admission of confessions of a codefendant implicating the defendant, in violation of the rule promulgated in Bru-ton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). The codefend-ant who gave the confession did not take the stand, thereby depriving Harrington of his right to cross examine and confront him. The United States Supreme Court affirmed Harrington’s conviction after finding that the tainted evidence was cumulative and overwhelming. We find the same situation in the case under consideration. In Harrington, the Supreme Court held that a departure from the constitutional right of confrontation did not require an automatic reversal. See also Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); United States v. Halliday, 658 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir. *3801981); State v. Braggs, 604 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn.Cr.App.1980). As stated in the main opinion, evidence other than the medical records left no reasonable conclusion except that the defendant and the victim had gonorrhea. We do not understand the cases cited by the defendant to hold that in every instance when hearsay evidence is erroneously admitted, no matter how unimportant or insignificant, a new trial is required. All such errors are not constitutional errors of the “first magnitude,” which cannot be cured by any amount of showing of want of prejudice. Harrington v. California, supra.
The petition to rehear is denied.
DUNCAN and CORNELIUS, JJ., concur.