Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03494/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03494-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Damon Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, as well as 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 323. 

2

 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 03-2862/3494

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Raymond Damon Smith, * 

also known as "Cap," *

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2004

Filed: August 4, 2004

___________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

In a two-count indictment, the government charged Raymond Damon Smith

with multiple federal drug offenses.1

 At trial, the jury convicted him on all counts. On

appeal, Smith argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the

district court2

 erred in its denial of his request for a new trial. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2004 Entry ID: 1795591 
-2-

First, Smith argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in

violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. We decline however to address the merits

of Smith's ineffective assistance claim because no hearing was held permitting his

trial counsel an opportunity to respond to Smith's claim. Claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel are more properly raised in a post-conviction motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, not on direct appeal. United States v. Pherigo, 327 F.3d 690, 696 (8th

Cir. 2003). In the absence of an adequate record below, we decline to review the issue

at this time. 

Second, Smith claims that the district court should have stopped the

government's "continual" use of leading questions during direct examination, even

though his trial counsel chose not to object. Smith alleges that the district court erred

by not sua sponte ordering the government to stop leading its witnesses. Smith claims

that this error was so prejudicial that the judgment should be reversed–and that he

should receive a new trial–despite the fact that no objections were offered below. He

argues that "[t]he inappropriate nature of the government's direct examination of its

own witnesses should have been obvious to the court, even if it was not obvious to

the government or defense counsel."

Ordinarily, we defer to the trial court in determining when leading questions

are necessary, reviewing only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Grassrope,

342 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2003). However, because no objection was made below,

we review Smith's claim for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Our review under

Rule 52(b) is limited to determining if there is an error that is plain and that affects

substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). When a forfeited

error meets these standards, we may order correction, United States v. Montanye, 996

F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc), but we will not exercise our discretion unless

Appellate Case: 03-3494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2004 Entry ID: 1795591 
3

 Leading questions should not be used on direct examination of a witness

except as may be necessary to develop the witness's testimony. Ordinarily, leading

questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile

witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation

may be by leading questions. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 611(c) state that

with respect to leading questions, "[t]he matter clearly falls within the area of control

by the judge over the mode and order of interrogation and presentation and

accordingly is phrased in words of suggestion rather than command."

-3-

the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732.

Smith has not shown that the district court erred by failing to limit the

government's direct examination. Generally, leading questions are best reserved for

cross-examination. However, leading questions may properly be used on direct

examination with certain witnesses–such as an adverse party or a potentially hostile

witness. Fed. R. Evid. 611(c).3

In this case, the district court–either under its discretionary authority or because

no objection was lodged–allowed several leading questions at various stages of the

trial. However, the district court also properly instructed the jury that an unanswered

leading question provides no information and is not evidence. The district court

further explained to the jury that an answered leading question should be given only

the limited weight that it deserves. Additionally, our review indicates that many of the

leading questions were clearly permissible–taking into account the district court's

broad discretion–under Rule 611(c). As to the remaining objectionable questions and

answers, none rise to the level of prejudice that would warrant relief under our plainerror standard. Accordingly, we affirm Smith's conviction and sentence, but do so

without prejudice to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3494 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2004 Entry ID: 1795591