assuming error to allow testimony that defendant asked for Bible in response to detective notifying him that police had discovered inculpatory evidence, error harmless because of overwhelming evidence against defendant at trial, including subsequent confession
How later courts described this case
- assuming error to allow testimony that defendant asked for Bible in response to detective notifying him that police had discovered inculpatory evidence, error harmless because of overwhelming evidence against defendant at trial, including subsequent confession
- observing that prosecutorial questioning about a defendant’s failure to contact the police after giving a statement, in order to correct the statement or provide additional information, is improper under the strictures of Doyle
- stating, in dictum, that presenting claim on appeal that is directly contrary to express claim at trial may constitute induced error
- affirming denial of request for continuance where defense coun- sel knew that individual was likely to be defense witness but made no attempt to locate witness until trial was nearly over
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VERTEFEUILLE, J.,
with whom, SULLIVAN, C. J., joins, dissenting. I join Justice Katz’ dissent because the United States Supreme Court recently concluded in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 136 , 126 S. Ct. 1515 , 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006), that under the federal constitution, an alleged consent to the search of a home conducted in the face of an objection from a joint occu *90 pant who is present at the scene is illegal. It is therefore unnecessary to decide this issue under our state constitution.