Opinion ID: 1191763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the trial judge err in precluding impeachment of latent print expert Timothy O'Sullivan?

Text: Defendant claims that the trial judge improperly prevented him from introducing evidence impeaching latent print examiner Timothy O'Sullivan. Prior to trial, defendant filed a memorandum in which he expressed his desire to impeach O'Sullivan regarding his medical condition and his performance in a previous case. Defendant raised this issue as part of his attempt to show that, although fingerprints found in the store were his own, the prints were not lifted from the food stamps lying next to Gee's body or the plastic bags found on the counter where Gee had been working. The trial court held that defendant could not impeach O'Sullivan based on his medical condition or his prior mistake in another case. Defendant made an offer of proof and introduced several exhibits to provide the court with the impeachment evidence.
Defendant contends that he should have been allowed to introduce evidence that in the relevant time frame O'Sullivan suffered from terminal cancer, was in significant pain, and was taking narcotic medications including Decadron. Defendant claims that this evidence was relevant to the issue of O'Sullivan's work at the crime scene and, more importantly, his processing of fingerprints from physical evidence at the station house.... At the crime scene, Detective Godoy and Detective Wright shared the responsibility of collecting the evidence after it was photographed (which included the bags of lemons and the cucumber and the food stamps). O'Sullivan's function at the crime scene was to give suggestions concerning the photographing and packaging of evidence and to advise the detectives on what items needed to be processed. Detective Godoy and O'Sullivan put the bags with the lemons and the cucumber into evidence envelopes. Specifically, Godoy put the bag from which the lemons were taken in an envelope marked From lemons and the bag from which the cucumber was taken in an envelope marked From cucumber. Detective Miller then sealed the envelopes. Although O'Sullivan removed the cucumber from its bag and dusted it for fingerprints at the crime scene, Godoy subsequently placed the cucumber in an envelope. Detective Godoy put the food stamps into an evidence envelope. [6] Detective Karen Wright prepared a map and log of the evidence taken from the scene and the locations of those items, and the log indicated that the cucumber/lemons in baggie were taken from the counter at the register in the liquor department. Defendant, as justification for his proffered impeachment of O'Sullivan, points to deviations from standard police procedure at the crime scene. One deviation was that several items, including those found on the counter near Fred Gee's body, were individually bagged in envelopes, then placed in a larger bag and may have been transported by O'Sullivan to the police station. This was a deviation insofar as the envelopes should have been transferred in the van driven by the I.D. technician and should not have been segregated from other items. Another alleged deviation was that the items taken from the murder scene were placed in a drying room at the police station which the detectives had hijacked to store bloody items. Defendant does not explain how these deviations tainted the evidence. Nor did defendant, in his offer of proof, adequately show how O'Sullivan's terminal illness, his prescription medicine, or his mood in any way related to whether the bags and food stamps were adequately sealed, transported, and tested or whether Detective Wright properly noted the location of the items on her map and log. [7] Defendant does not present a chain of custody issue. The authority defendant cites does not support admission of his proffered impeachment evidence. In State v. Hallman, 137 Ariz. 31, 668 P.2d 874 (1983), this court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to bring out on cross-examination that defendant's brother, who testified on defendant's behalf at trial, had refused to honor a state subpoena. Id. at 35-36, 668 P.2d at 878-79. The court held that this evidence was relevant to show bias and that the scope of the impeachment was properly limited because the trial court only allowed the state to inquire with regard to the time period after the witness had been released from jail. Id. In Hallman, the court held that a defendant has the right to introduce evidence that may in the slightest degree affect the witness' credibility. 137 Ariz. at 36, 668 P.2d at 879. However, the court did so in the context of evidence concerning the bias of a witness. It is hardly analogous to argue that a defendant must be allowed to probe all areas relating to the mood or health of a witness, even though the defendant fails to show that the witness' mood or health related to the events in question.
Fong also claims he should have been allowed to impeach O'Sullivan by introducing evidence showing O'Sullivan had misidentified a fingerprint in the Prime Time Rapist case in Tucson in 1986. Fong claims that as a result of that case O'Sullivan himself admitted his credibility was shot and he was fined $32,000. However, O'Sullivan did not admit that at the time in question his credibility was shot. Instead, as defendant's offer of proof makes clear, O'Sullivan said his credibility after the Prime Time Rapist case had been shot, but he proceeded to study, attend courses and seminars, give lectures, and re-establish himself in the field, and he was once again respected by his peers well before the murders in this case occurred. Additionally, O'Sullivan was not fined $32,000. He was demoted, which caused him to lose a certain amount of compensation and to be promoted at a lower pay scale. He calculated that over the course of his career, the demotion might cost him $32,000. However, even assuming that misidentification in another case might, under some circumstances, be admissible on credibility, there was no error in excluding such evidence here because defendant does not even dispute that in this case O'Sullivan properly identified the prints in question as belonging to defendant.