Harris v. State

The central issue on this appeal is whether a voluntary statement made by Detective Joseph Chemey, in testifying for the state, was so prejudicial as to require a new trial. During direct examination Detective Chemey testified that during part of the day on which the burglary occurred he had kept Harris under surveillance. In describing the arrival of Harris and others at Harris’ apartment, the detective stated, “They [Harris and one Norman Pozorski] were in the apartment and about five minutes later another known convicted safecracker appeared on the scene and also entered the apartment…