In a misdemeanor
case there was a motion in limine hearing prior to the trial
. The defense counsel made the motion to object to allowing marijuana evidence in the trial. The court
overruled the motion in limine.
In the trial after the prosecution questioned the expert about his qualifications and just before the prosecutor starting asking questions about the specifics of this particular case, the defense counsel asked the court if counsel for prosecution and defense could approach the bench. The court said yes and there is a note by the court reporter that "the following bench conference was outside the hearing of the jury."
The defense counsel asked: " Can I renew my earlier objection and motion in limine that we previously had this morning? Could I also object that, based upon Ms testimony, my client was clearly in the custody of the police department; he was alread in custody, and he never had a choice. And based upon all those reasons, I'd ask that the evidence not be permitted to go the the jury."
Prosecution responded: " Your Honor, Oklahoma statute provides that if there is an automobile accident with either great bodily injury or death, that it is a requirement that a blood sample is taken. That happened in this case. It doesn't matter if he was in custody or not."
The Court replied: " I believe that's the case. The objection is overruled.
The defense counsel replied with: "I'd still, just for the record, initiate--or reiterate my earlier motion in limine from this morning and objections."
The Court said: "It will be noted, and I've considered it further and it is overruled."
Defense cousel responded: "Thank you."
My question is since the objection on allowing the marjuana testimony into trial was just a reiteration of the motion in limine objection and it was out of the hearing of the jury was this still considered an official objection that could have been used by appeal counsel?
Then a little later the prosecution went to introduce exhibits 19 and 20 which were the drug test results.
The defense objected saying: "Objection. It's hearsay. He can testify about what his findings were, but it's clearly hearsay for the admission of the record."
Court responded: " That will be overruled. States exhibit 19 will be admitted"
Same objection for exhibit 20 and it was also overruled.
The appeal counsel only used the objections to the two exhibits but also said what the trial court counsel said that "..He can testify about what his findings were, but it's clearly hearsay for the admission of the record."
So even after defense counsel objected to the testimony out of hearing the jury. He later says and appeal counsel also says: "He can testify about what his findings were, but it's clearly hearsay for the admission of the record." Was that the correct thing for them to say if that was a bonafide objection about the testimony outside the hearing of the jury?