 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Serna8/29/1991
apes a part of the record, we agree with the state that we have no way of knowing whether these tapes contained the allegedly missing information. Therefore, we cannot adequately review defendant's claim. In any event, the information regarding which defendant claims surprise was available through interviews with the officers.
5. Denial of Motion for New Trial.
Defendant argues this issue under
and . His motion for a new trial sought to present the evidence that would impeach Detective Ferner's testimony that defendant had no shirt on when he came to the door of the trailer and to make a legal argument that defendant could not be found guilty of harboring based on his failure to answer the door because the officers already had a warrant. The first argument is not a ground for a new trial. See . The last argument we have answered in the earlier portion of this opinion.
6. Conclusion.
Having considered defendant's claims of error and finding them to be without merit, we affirm his conviction and the judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
|