Since the undercover officer's ability to identify defendant was at issue, the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the officer to testify about his unspecified "conversation" with defendant on a prior occasion. Defendant failed to preserve his present argument that the court should have declared a mistrial when the officer revealed, on cross-examination, that the prior incident was a drug transaction, and the record does not support defendant's assertion...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
