stating that the third requirement was met when a witness “denied having made the allegedly inconsistent portion of the statement”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the third requirement was met when a witness “denied having made the allegedly inconsistent portion of the statement”
- even if it was error for the trial court to permit a nurse witness to testify that her “examination would verify the story that [the complaining witness] told me,” such error was harmless
- "Sentences for two convictions must be merged when: (1) the convictions are based on the same act or acts, and (2) under the required evidence test, the two offenses are deemed to be the same, or one offense is deemed to be the lesser included offense of the other.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ADKINS, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the Majority opinion, except with respect to its finding no error in the trial court’s failure to strike Nurse Harden’s response to the prosecutor’s question, indicating she could verify the victim’s accounting of the events that transpired.
I agree with Judge Harrell’s dissenting opinion when he concludes that refusing to strike this testimony was error by the trial court. I disagree, though, with Judge’s Harrell’s conclusion that this error was prejudicial. In my opinion, there was sufficient corroborating evidence to render this error harmless. Such evidence includes the police officer’s testimony about his arrival at the victim’s house, Nurse Harden’s non-objectionable testimony about the significant physical injury to the victim, and the photographs of the victim taken at the time of the crime. I agree with Judge McDonald’s analysis when he concludes that if there were error, it was harmless.
Accordingly, I join in the judgment of the Majority, and some of its rationale, but not its failure to strike Nurse Harden’s response as described above.