The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Keenley, a state undercover agent, sent Linda Archibald (an informant working with the Department of Public Safety) into a Tavern to contact D for the purchase of hashish or marijuana. She returned to Keenley's vehicle with D, who sold the agent three ounces of hashish for $255. At trial, D testified he was told by Archibald 'that if I didn't help them they would have to go back to their hometown empty-handed and that they had a bunch of people lined up to buy grams of hash and things like that.' D contended, 'I didn't want to be a 'jerk' * * * and flat out refuse to help them.' He testified he then obtained the hashish from a friend in the tavern and sold it only because he was persuaded by Archibald. On cross, D said he had lived with three other college students and was asked if Keenley and Archibald had not come to that residence on prior occasions to buy drugs. Objection to the question was overruled, and D stated he could not say that was a fact. He was then asked if he was in that residence and witnessed a McGranahan sell hashish to Keenley. Objection to this question was sustained. D was then asked, 'Is it not a fact, sir, that prior to July 27, 1971, that you had sold or delivered marijuana to Keenley?' After objection, D responded that to the best of his knowledge, he had not. Two more such questions followed, with similar responses. D rested, and in the jury's absence, D made a motion in limine to exclude any testimony by state Keenley and Dooley relating to alleged prior sales of marijuana and specifically an alleged sale made April 22, 1971, on the ground such testimony would be irrelevant, prejudicial, deprive D of a fair trial, and the alleged incidents were remote in time. The court ruled that P be permitted reopen D to further cross in order to D by asking him if he was not arraigned on that charge. D was recalled and asked if he had been arraigned on a charge of selling marijuana to Keenley on April 22, 1971, which he admitted, and if he wished to change his prior testimony as to whether he had previously sold marijuana to Keenley, to which he responded in the negative. Motion for a mistrial was overruled. D was convicted, and a motion for a new trial was overruled. D appealed, claiming that evidence of arraignment would not be competent or relevant evidence to prove commission of the separate offense.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.