 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sebo5/7/2002
ed temporarily pursuant to an investigatory stop is not in custody. State v. Dallmann, 260 Neb. 937, 621 N.W.2d 86 (2000). However, we need not determine whether Sebo was in custody and subject to custodial interrogation in this case. Even if we were to conclude that Sebo was in custody, any error in denying his motion to suppress statements was harmless error.
An error which constitutes a violation or deprivation of a defendant's constitutional right and which enters into a defendant's conviction does not necessarily or always require automatic reversal of the conviction, if the error was harmless. State v. Twohig, supra. In a situation involving the erroneous admission of constitutionally inadmissible evidence, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction. Id.
In the present case, Sebo was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Our review of the record, and our discussion above, indicates that the methamphetamine which Sebo possessed was discovered as a result of a search incident to a lawful arrest. As discussed above, there was ample evidence to support a finding of probable cause for Sebo's arrest which led to the search and discovery of the evidence. Nowhere in our discussion above did we rely in any way on the statements made by Sebo. There is not a reasonable probability that the statements might have contributed to the conviction for possession of methamphetamine. See State v. Twohig, supra. As such, any error in overruling the motion to suppress statements would have been harmless error. This assigned error is without merit.
V. CONCLUSION
We find no merit to Sebo's assigned errors. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.
|