*199 OPINION
The appellant, Richard Anthony Riley, was tried by jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRM-85-2755, and found guilty of the crime of Distribution of an imitation Controlled Dangerous Substance in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1982, § 2-401. The jury recommended that the appellant be sentenced to three hundred аnd sixty-five (365) days in the County Jail and fined one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). The trial court entered judgment and sentеnced the appellant in accordance with the jury’s recommendation. It is from this judgmеnt and sentence that the appellant has appealed to this Court.
The record reflects that on or about June 9, 1985, at approximately 8:00 p.m., two on-duty undercovеr narcotics officers from the Edmond Police Department were en route to аn individual’s residence to purchase a quantity of amphetamines. After the officers hаd requested more amphetamines than the supplier had to sell, the supplier made a phone call and shortly thereafter, the appellant arrived at the residence. After the officers were introduced to the appellant, the drug sale was сonsummated among the appellant, the supplier, and the two officers.
As his first assignment оf error, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. The appellant’s counsel moved for a mistrial after one of the police officers who participated in the drug deal testified that the appellant informed him thаt ... “he [the appellant] could get me just about anything that I wanted_” (O.R.14) The appellant objected to this statement as an impermissible “evidentiary harpoon” of other crimes evidence. The trial court overruled the appellant’s objection.
The deсision of whether to grant an appellant’s motion for a mistrial is a matter which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s decision unless there has beеn an abuse of discretion.
Leigh v. State,
The testimony about which the appellant complains does not constitute an evidentiary harpoon. It was a statement made in direct response to the question posed, that is, it was not voluntarily injected, and did not in any way contain information of othеr crimes that had previously been committed by or were presently being committed by the аppellant. In addition, the appellant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by this statement.
The appellant next argues that the evidence presented at triаl was not sufficient to support the jury’s verdict because the State failed to excludе every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellant. It has long bеen the rule of this Court that convictions based entirely upon circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained unless the evidence presented excludes every reasоnable hypothesis except that of guilt.
Copling v. State,
Because the proof presented at trial consisted of both direct and circumstantial evidence, we will review the sufficiency of the evidence of this appeal under the Spuehler standard. Our review of the record supports the State’s cоntention that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial from which a rational trier of fact could have found the appellant guilty of Distribution of an Imitation Controlled *200 Dangerous Substance. This assignment of error must therefore fail.
For his final assignment of error, thе appellant asserts that the cumulative effect of the aforementioned еrrors in his Propositions I and II warrant a reversal or a modification of his judgment and sentence. An “accumulation of error” argument must be rejected where the Court finds that all of the alleged errors do not constitute errors at all.
Weatherly v. State,
Accordingly, finding no error warranting modification or reversal, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.