Court Opinion

ID: 9683113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:22:41.358486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:45.017106
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the results as to the appellant Coleman. However, I respectfully dissent in the results as to the appellants Bass and Haynes. The admission of appellant Coleman’s statement referring to extraneous offenses was error. But, in view of the overwhelming independent evidence pf guilt of Bass and Haynes, I cannot conclude that the probable impact on the minds of the jurors was so prejudicial as to require reversal.
The testimony of the deceased’s wife, who was an eye witness to the murder, the physical evidence and the individual confessions of Bass and Haynes were of such strong character as to lead to the conclusion that the State’s case would not have been less persuasive had this statement been excluded. Therefore, the admission of this statement, while error, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Schneble v. Florida, supra; Harrington v. California, supra.
No reversible error has been shown as to Bass and Haynes. The judgments as to them should be affirmed.
DOUGLAS, J., joins in this opinion.