Is a statement by a police officer that appellant requested his attorney be present during his questioning not admissible?

The record also fails to show any objection to the officer's statement that appellant requested his attorney be present during the interrogation; appellant made no motion to strike the testimony nor any request that the jury be admonished; therefore, he is precluded from urging the error on appeal. (People v. Thompson (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 132, 144, 101 Cal.Rptr. 683.)

[71 Cal.App.3d 705] Finally, assuming that the evidence of appellant's request for an attorney was admitted in error, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705) in light of appellant's own admission of the shooting. Moreover, the prosecutor made no effort to exploit the statement so as to bring this case within the ambit of People v. Andrews (1970) 14 Cal.App.3d 40, 92 Cal.Rptr. 49.