Court Opinion

ID: 9451888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:26:23.978254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:57.518392
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING IN NO. 22900
PER CURIAM:
On petition for rehearing Parker contends that the district court could not have properly ruled on his motion to exclude Zigrossi’s testimony since at the time of his motion insufficient foundation had been laid to finding a “copart-nership in crime.” This contention must be overruled for two reasons.
First, we held in our initial opinion that the testimony of Police Captain Starrett was sufficient predicate by itself on which Judge McRae could have found a copartnership in crime. We reaffirm that holding.
Second, we held that taking the entire record there was a clear showing of the copartnership in crime. Parker appears to misconceive the reviewing function, and argues that we may only look at the record made prior to Zigrossi’s testimony. Our function on appeal is to determine whether the testimony was erroneously admitted, and, if so, whether the error was prejudicial.
In the instant case the district judge admitted the testimony for the wrong reason. But this did not prejudice Parker, because the testimony was clearly admissible for a different reason, which we explained in our first opinion. As an appellate court it is our duty to look at the entire record to see whether the trial court at the conclusion of the evidence should have instructed the jury to disregard Zigrossi’s testimony. Clearly, by the end of the trial the copartnership in crime had been established and the jury in reaching its verdict could properly consider all of Zigrossi’s testimony. Therefore, even if the initial admission of the evidence was error, it could not have been prejudicial error.
Rehearing is
Denied.