Court Opinion

ID: 9671417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:36:20.495372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.990743
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
The answer of Officer Johnson to the question of what was taken as a result of the search of appellant’s apartment other than the items that were in evidence was: “Some property that Mr. Campbell told us was stolen property.”
The court promptly sustained the objection to the answer of the witness as not being responsive to the question and instructed the jury not to consider the last portion “because it was not responsive, and objected to and inadmissible,” but he overruled appellant’s motion for mistrial.
It is apparent from the record that the answer of the witness was that to be expected by appellant’s trial counsel. In the absence of the jury counsel had inquired of Officer Johnson as to what he did about listing what he took in the return on the search warrant, and the witness had replied: “We took two radios and a small record player that Robert Campbell said was stolen.”
Thereafter, in the jury’s presence, he made a similar inquiry and received the *751answer: “Some property that Mr. Campbell told us was stolen property.”
That the same property was referred to is evident from the continuation of the cross-examination of Officer Johnson after the court’s ruling on this answer.
“Q. The Court allowed to stand the part where you said ‘two radios’, was there anything else that you said?
“A. And a small portable record player.”
Further cross-examination elicited that the two radios and the record player taken in the search were not listed in the return on the search warrant.
We remain convinced that the complained of evidence elicited by appellant and promptly withdrawn from the jury’s consideration does not warrant reversal.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.