A. E. Kirkland appeals from his conviction of burglary urging two errors in the charge and one error on an evidentiary ruling. 1 All three errors concern an oral confession made by the co-defendant Ingram in Kirkland’s presence which inculpated Kirkland. It is contended that this evidence adversely affected the jury’s determination of his guilt.
We affirm. Even if the confession had been totally excluded, the verdict of guilty was demanded by other evidence. The two inept burglars were caught red-handed stealing television sets from a motel, and the confession added nothing of substance to the state’s case. Accordingly, not only was it "highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment” within the contemplation of the newly-announced "highly probable” test
(Johnson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
For related appeals see
Ingram v. State,
