Court Opinion

ID: 9583225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:36:06.663971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:53.323465
License: Public Domain

Quillian, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While I agree with all that is said in the majority opinion I concur for a further reason. The record reveals that the trial judge during the course of the trial excused the jury and in effect had another hearing on the admissibility of the evidence which was the subject of the motion to suppress which was fully transcribed. After hearing the evidence the trial judge overruled the objections to the admission of the evidence. The hearing of the evidence and his ruling thereon was tantamount to a second hearing on the motion to suppress. Therefore, his ruling superseded the prior order on the motion to suppress and rendered the prior hearing and the ruling thereof moot and as a consequence the absence of the transcript of the first hearing would be harmless.
*743I am authorized to state that Shulman, Birdsong, Carley and Sognier, JJ., concur in this special concurrence.