Title: State v. Hill
Citation: 109 Ariz. 93, 505 P.2d 553
Docket Number: 2404
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: January 24, 1973

109 Ariz. 93 (1973) 505 P.2d 553 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles Victor HILL, Appellant. No. 2404. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. January 24, 1973. Rehearing Denied February 27, 1973. *94 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Louis A. Moore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Gibson &amp; Gibson by Franklin K. Gibson, Phoenix, for appellant. HAYS, Chief Justice. Defendant, Charles Victor Hill, appeals from his conviction of the crime of robbery. He was sentenced to five to six years in the state prison, after a guilty verdict by a jury. He contends that error was committed when the trial court admitted "certain questions propounded by the prosecutor." The robber grabbed the victim's purse and ran. The crime took place at 8:30 p.m. in a South Phoenix shopping center which was well lighted, both inside and outside the buildings. Positive identification was made by the victim and a bystander, both from a group of photographs and in court. The defense was alibi. The first witness for the defense was James Hill, defendant's brother, who testified that defendant was at the Neal home in the presence of six other persons, continuously from 7:00 to 11:00 on the night of the robbery. Cross-examination naturally covered the activities of the witness during the whole day in an effort to see how good his memory was and whether any contradictions would develop. The responses of the witness were somewhat vague and not entirely satisfactory. Part of the dialogue between him and the prosecutor was as follows: In rebuttal, no attempt was made to prove that James Hill had told the prosecutor anything in conflict with the testimony. However, the prosecution called Officer Altfeltis, but after a few innocuous questions, court was recessed and some sort of proceedings were had off the record in chambers, near the end of which the judge announced: Defendant's first argument is that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach James Hill by questions designed to prove that he had made prior inconsistent statements to the prosecutor himself. Defendant refers to this as impeachment by insinuation and correctly points out that in State v. Singleton, 66 Ariz. 49, 182 P.2d 920, we held: The reasons are clear. First, Second, as we said as early as 1921, in Walker v. State, 23 Ariz. 59, 201 P. 398: This language is particularly applicable (1) where the witness being impeached is the defendant himself, after he has elected to take the stand, and (2) where the insinuating questions are of the type which seek to give the impression that *96 the witness has been convicted of a felony, rather than that he has made prior inconsistent statements. The application of the above-cited cases is not nearly so clear where the witness is not the defendant and the questions do not refer to previous bad acts. In such cases, the defendant does not have to be prepared to defend against any aspersions other than the crime for which he is being tried, and the aspersions are not other crimes, but merely other statements. In the instant case, the witness was not the defendant, but was his brother, and the question was designed to test his memory and veracity by an inquiry as to a previous contradictory statement. If he had previously told the prosecutor that he had been home all afternoon, and on the stand testified as he did, that he was away from home for several hours, the prosecution was justified in asking the question and the jury could decide whether he was a liar, or had a bad memory. The difficulty here is that the prosecutor lost his temper or did not know the law, and when the witness made a statement which contradicted one made to the prosecutor before the trial, the prosecutor said: This was a gross violation of ethics and highly prejudicial error. The jury, as we have previously noted, is likely to believe such a statement by a prosecutor who has, in effect, placed his own veracity in issue. The defendant has no effective way to cope with such impropriety. We therefore agree with the defendant that reversible error was committed. As this case must be reversed, it is unnecessary to determine the other issues argued because they probably will not recur. This case is reversed and remanded. CAMERON, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.