Case Title: State v. Schlittenhardt

Citation: 147 N.W.2d 118

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1966-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
147 N.W.2d 118 (1966) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raynold J. SCHLITTENHARDT, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 335. Supreme Court of North Dakota. December 19, 1966. *120 Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., and Albert A. Wolf, State's Atty., of Burleigh County, Bismarck, for plaintiff and respondent. Conmy, Conmy, Rosenberg & Lucas, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant. MURRAY, Judge. Defendant was convicted in the District Court of Burleigh County of the crime of attempting to take indecent liberties. Subsequent to conviction, he moved for a new trial and has now appealed to this court from the order denying motion for new trial. Among the grounds for said motion for new trial was the order of the district court denying motion for mistrial. Defense counsel moved initially, in the alternative, during the trial, for mistrial, for an order to strike certain matters from the record, and for an admonition to the jury. At a subsequent time, after the district court had denied the motion for mistrial but had admonished the jury and ordered these matters stricken from the record, defense counsel twice renewed his motion for mistrial. The propriety of the trial court's order denying motion for mistrial is the serious question before us. As we said in Davidson, we treat these matters together and, accordingly, regard the subsequent renewals of motion as being motions for mistrial, not in the alternative, and an indication by the defendant that he was not satisfied with the admonition and striking alone. The nature of the evidence objected to was the reference in the testimony of a Bismarck police detective, Joseph E. Meier, concerning the use in identification of the defendant, in interviewing the complaining witness, of a red-lettered book entitled "Known Criminals" "Detective Bureau". In order to understand this properly, we quote from the pertinent parts of the testimony of Dectective Joseph E. Meier of the Bismarck Police Department. For obvious reasons the last name of the young boy witness, who is the complainant, is omitted, and he is referred to herein as "Richard". At this point the court retired to chambers at the request of defense counsel, with both counsel present. Quoting further from the transcript: It will be noted, in connection with the timeliness of defense counsel's objection, that he did not object to the original question, and therefore the issue of timeliness has arisen. The fact is, to be practical, that the question was a completely proper one, involving procedures used to identify, and defense counsel could not have known what a prejudicial answer was going to emerge, however innocently, from this witness. A very recent Minnesota case states the law with clarity and refers to appropriate United States Supreme Court authority of recent origin on this question. State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 130 N.W.2d 347. *122 In the Minnesota case, as in this case, the question of the prosecutor was not objectionable, but the answer of the witness was the damaging factor. We quote from the Minnesota court, because the situation is so much in point with instant case. State v. Huffstutler, 130 N.W.2d 347, at pages 348, 349: In the same case the Minnesota court ably deals with a question raised by the prosecutor in his brief here, namely, that if there were ample other evidence to convict, this impropriety, if any, should not cause a reversal. Here is what the Minnesota Supreme Court said on this subject in State v. Huffstutler, 130 N.W.2d 347, 348: It also is quite clear from this record that this book, red-lettered "Known Criminals", lay exposed on the table of the prosecutor in plain view of the jury. There is no reason why a defense counsel, being unable to predict an answer, must make his objection to a proper question which results in an improper and prejudicial answer. We note the following comment to the court in chambers by defense counsel: What defense counsel was saying here was, that any discussion of this matter in the presence of the jury by further objections and argument would have aggravated the situation in which the defendant found himself. Although it is not clear to us whether the prosecutor took the course he did in order to establish identification, or to put over the idea of previous offenses, *123 we note the following language by the court in chambers to the attorneys: After further discussion, the court said the following to counsel: The conspicuous nature of this book as it lay exposed in the courtroom may be inferred from the following quotation from the transcript, of conference in chambers: The court below had definite ideas about this book, and its nature and its effects, which are shown by the following language: The colloquy in the court's chambers then terminated with the following exchange: Upon resumption of the trial in open court before the jury, the court made the following statement, which was obviously intended to be curative in nature: Subsequent to this, the prosecuting attorney continued in a proper way to pursue the question of identification by photograph by asking Detective Meier the following: In examining the instructions to the jury, subsequently given at the close of the trial, by the court, we also find the following language, which might be interpreted as a further attempt by the court to cure the harm done to the defendant by the reference to prejudicial evidence: When both parties had rested, defense counsel made this renewal of the motion for mistrial, the pertinent parts of which are hereby reproduced: This renewed motion was again denied. However, we note the following language in the transcript: At this crucial point in this criminal action, we are deprived of the benefit of knowing what discussion went on between court and counsel because said discussion was placed off the record by the trial court's own direction to the reporter. This use of "off the record" discussion at an important juncture in a criminal case is disapproved of, as it deprives us of the opportunity to examine the full record, which is left in an area of limbo and uncertainty as to what was said. Probably nothing important occurred, but any doubts must be resolved in favor of a defendant in a criminal case. There is no question about the fact that the reference in testimony to, and the physical viewability and perhaps unintended exhibition to the jury of, this red-lettered book entitled "Known Criminals", was strongly prejudicial to the rights of this defendant. The trial judge called it prejudicial in the record, in denying defendant's motion and in admonishing the jury. The trial judge did make an effort to correct this situation by a curative statement to the jury, and later by a statement contained in the instructions. However, in the light of practical courtroom atmosphere in a criminal case, as distinguished from esoteric theory, not only did prejudice result to the defendant, but the effect of such prejudice was not cured by what the court said in admonishing the jury and later in its instructions. It would require extreme naivete to hold otherwise. Quoting 53 Am.Jur. 968, we note the following language: Admonishing the jury and the striking of evidence do not always serve the result intended, to cure the prejudice that results. In this connection we quote from State v. Egbert, 63 S.D. 324, 258 N.W. 283, 288: The South Dakota case cited (State v. Egbert) is a criminal case and obviously the prejudice resulting in a criminal case is more damaging than in a civil case, and therefore the rule should be stricter in a criminal case in favor of a criminal defendant. However, the South Dakota court quoted with approval from the North Dakota *126 civil case of Crisp v. State Bank of Rolla, 32 N.D. 263, 155 N.W. 78, 81: There is an exception to the rule, however, which is as well established as is the general rule itself, and that is that: The prosecution in a criminal case may not introduce evidence tending to prove that the defendant was morally deficient, that he possessed a criminal disposition generally, or that he was particularly disposed to commit the offense with which he is charged. State v. Gummer, 51 N.D. 445, 200 N.W. 20, 33. In the above case, in the body of the opinion, we find the additional interesting language relating to certain prior specific conduct under comparable conditions: In State v. Moore (N.D.), 101 N.W.2d 579, 586, this court held that the trial court's curative statement justified denying motion for mistrial, where evidence was admitted by one codefendant against the other for a limited purpose. An admonition having been given there by the trial court, this court held that any prejudice was cured. However, this court then proceeded to quote with approval the following: The underlined material above clearly fits the case before us, and distinguishes this case from Moore. In any future case, there must be a like weighing of the facts and situation, in order to apply this rule of law, or its exception. In normal police and investigative procedures, especially in the case of sex criminals, it is common practice to use identification books of this type. The *127 reason that police and investigative agencies do this is that sex criminals follow known patterns (modus operandi), and are repetitive in the nature of their crimes. That which is the proper investigative procedure, and in the best interests of the public, may also be something which should not be exhibited, either openly or covertly to a jury by display on a courtroom table. When it is referred to by a witness, namely a police officer, the effect can be disastrous. This has nothing to do with the principle that, under some conditions, prior convictions can be introduced in evidence. It is true that they may be. However, there is no such attempt here, but merely the display, and reference to in evidence, of some book called "Known Criminals", which is used with reference to a defendant. This is comparable to the techniques used in the Middle Ages when criminals were branded with a certain brand to correspond to the nature of their past crimes. Since in this case the defendant did not take the witness stand, the State was deprived of the right to cross-examine him concerning past criminal convictions. The record is silent as to any attempt by the State's Attorney to introduce as part of the prosecution's case, any record of similar offenses, and therefore the State's contention that previous offenses may be introduced under some circumstances, is a moot question and not one involved in this criminal action. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for mistrial as renewed, and new trial is granted. TEIGEN, C. J., and STRUTZ, KNUDSON and ERICKSTAD, JJ., concur.