Court Opinion

ID: 9593160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:20:16.382968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:42.244185
License: Public Domain

Quillian, Justice,
dissenting. I dissent from the holding of division three of the foregoing opinion. As I construe the evidence there was none adduced upon the trial that connected the pistol mentioned in the conversation overheard and quoted *215by Detective Shattles with the robbery of the filling station or the murder of Mr. Howell. It is significant that the State could have produced evidence to identify the pistol referred to in the reported conversation as the murder weapon, or disclosed frankly that it was not the same. This is true because the State recovered the murder weapon and introduced it into evidence, but withheld the evidence as to the source or place from which the weapon was procured.
In my opinion, the admission of the quoted evidence was error and such error was hurtful to the defendant because, while the incident referred to in the conversation overheard by the officer was not shown to have been connected with the'offense charged in the indictment, the conversation overheard by the officer did have the effect of impressing upon the jury that the defendant was involved in some crime of potential violence.