We believe the proper method of decontaminating such testimony is to establish the degree to which the opinion of value has been influenced by the convenience of access which is eliminated under the police power and then to instruct the jury to disregard such in fixing damages." State v. Wilson (1966), 4 Ariz. App. 420, 431, 420 P.2d 992, 1003. Admittedly, the change in grade was not a significant factor in changing the highest and best use of the property.

That there are four views in this country as to the admissibility of such evidence seems clear. See, Annotation at 12 A.L.R.3d 1064, "ADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE AS TO COMPARABLE SALES OF OTHER LAND AS BASIS FOR EXPERT'S OPINION AS TO LAND VALUE"; State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson (1967), 4 Ariz. App. 420, 420 P.2d 992; 5 Nichols on Eminent Domain, 3d Ed., §§ 18.4, 18.42, 18.45. One view strictly applies the hearsay rule; the second holds the evidence admissible for the limited purpose of showing the basis of the witness' opinion (the so-called "Texas Rule"); the third holds the admission of such evidence is discretionary with the trial court; and, the fourth that such evidence may be admitted for general purposes.

Judgments for the condemnees, the Wilsons and the Finleys, were entered in the superior court, appealed by the State and cross-appealed by both the Wilsons and Finleys. The Court of Appeals set aside the judgments and remanded the causes for new trial, 4 Ariz. App. 420, 420 P.2d 992, on rehearing 4 Ariz. App. 577, 422 P.2d 408. Opinions of the Court of Appeals vacated. The condemnations grew out of the conversion of State Route #86 into U.S. Interstate #10 between Willcox and Benson, Arizona.

This right of access is an easement appurtenant to the abutting privately owned 6.13-acre tract attaching to the specific land occupied by the abutting highway as the serviant estate. (See State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson, 4 Ariz. App. 420, 420 P.2d 992 (1966), vacated on appeal from remand, 103 Ariz. 194, 438 P.2d 760 (1968).) This right is to be distinguished from the divisible right of access to go directly from the land between old and new U.S. Route 66 (the 1.13-acre tract) onto new Route 66, which was taken and for which just compensation was paid in the 1955 eminent domain proceedings.

Once an exhibit goes into evidence and the record has been preserved by a proper objection, the objecting attorney has every right to examine from such document and attempt to rehabilitate his case. State v. Wilson, 4 Ariz. App. 420, 420 P.2d 992 (1966). Reversed and remanded for new trial.

This situation differs from the one presented to the Arizona Supreme Court in the case of Pima County v. Bilby, 87 Ariz. 366, 351 P.2d 647 (1960). Both Thelberg and Bilby are discussed in the Court of Appeals decision of State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson, 4 Ariz. App. 420, 420 P.2d 992 (1966). In relation to Wilson, the Court of Appeals rendered an opinion denying the motion for rehearing.

The Superior Court, Pima County, Cause Nos. 82642-82643, John P. Collins, J., entered judgment for condemnees. The Court of Appeals set aside the judgment and remanded the causes for new trial, 4 Ariz. App. 420, 420 P.2d 992. On motions for rehearing the Court of Appeals, Molloy, J., held that objection by state to admission of log of pumping from certain well in condemnation action, in which state's attorney said that objection was the same, that there had been no foundation as to admission of the exhibit, was sufficient objection upon which to predicate error where reading of other portions of the transcript indicated that state's objection to admission of the exhibit was on hearsay grounds.

See Huish v. Lopez, 70 Ariz. 201, 218 P.2d 727 (1950). See State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson, 4 Ariz. App. 420, 420 P.2d 992 (1966), for a discussion of non-compensable items of damage in a condemnation action. The principal reason expressed by the state's appraiser as to why the remaining portion to the north had suffered no severance damage was that by reason of the "unique" nature of the interchange in question and the particular location of the remaining property in relation thereto, the property would be ideally suited for a combination motel, restaurant and service station similar to those established by several national chains.