Martin v. State

Per Curiam. Appellant was tried before the court without a jury and was found guilty of robbery. The State called as its witness Livingston, the alleged accomplice of appellant. He was asked whether he knew appellant and whether he had ever given a statement to the police about the case.

His answer was “No” to both questions. He was asked nothing about the contents of any such statement. Later the State called Lieutenant Judd. He was asked whether during the course of the investigation, Livingston had made a statement concerning the incident.

His answer was yes ; that he had taken an oral statement which he transcribed in his. own handwriting; that when he asked Livingston if he would make a written statement, his answer was no. After cross examination by defense counsel, the Lieutenant was again asked, on redirect examination, if he had taken a statement from the alleged accomplice. He stated that he had and then, over objection by defense counsel, he was permitted to relate such statement in full. In the course of the opinion, in which appellant was found guilty, the trial judge, after referring to the identification of appellant by the prosecuting witness, stated “In addition to that,, we have the testimony of Lieutenant Judd who testified that he took an oral statement from Harry Livingston who admitted' participating in this crime with the defendant.” The court then said that there was no doubt that defendant was the