Opinion ID: 2383168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Doran's Excluded Statement Properly Admitted For Impeachment

Text: Doran elected to testify in his own defense. Before Doran decided to testify, he was completely aware of the content of the prior oral statement, attributed to him by Detective Sparks, that had been excluded from evidence during the State's case-in-chief. Doran's trial testimony included an explanation for the legitimate presence of his fingerprints on Bradley's apartment door, which was inconsistent with that prior oral statement. After Doran completed his direct testimony, the prosecutor requested permission from the trial judge to use the prior statement by Doran, which had been excluded from evidence, solely for the purpose of impeachment. In ruling upon the prosecutor's request to use Doran's prior oral statement for the purpose of impeachment, the trial judge noted that defendants are not generally permitted to take unfair advantage of a ruling which excludes a prior statement from evidence. The trial judge analogized the situation in Doran's case to the one that had been addressed in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). In Harris, the United States Supreme Court stated that when a defendant exercises his right to testify, he assumes a reciprocal obligation to speak truthfully and accurately. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. at 225, 91 S.Ct. at 645. In Harris, the Court approved the use of statements, inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief, for impeaching the credibility of a defendant, once the defendant has testified in his own behalf. The Court held: The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances. We hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements. Id. 401 U.S. at 226, 91 S.Ct. at 646. The trial judge determined that the Delaware Rules of Evidence expressly envision the admission of evidence for limited purposes. Del.R.Evid. 105. The trial judge granted the prosecutor's request to use Doran's prior statement to Detective Sparks, solely for the purpose of impeaching Doran's credibility. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). Thereafter, the trial judge gave a limiting instruction to the jury, to consider Doran's prior statement to Sparks solely for the purpose of judging Doran's credibility. [4] See Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 64, 74 S.Ct. 354, 355-56, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954). The United States Supreme Court has recently reiterated its adherence to the ratio decidendi of its holding in Harris, stating: we have consistently rejected arguments that would allow a defendant to `turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government's possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide him with a shield against contradiction of his untruths.' Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 1180, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990) (quoting Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. at 224, 91 S.Ct. at 645). See also Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954). This Court has frequently relied upon and applied the holding of Harris. See Bradley v. State, Del.Supr., 559 A.2d 1234, 1247 (1989); Weber v. State, Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 674, 687 (1983); Walton v. State, Del.Supr., 407 A.2d 535, 536 (1979); Foraker v. State, Del.Supr., 394 A.2d 208, 212 (1978); Wright v. State, Del.Supr., 374 A.2d 824, 831 (1977); Hill v. State, Del.Supr., 316 A.2d 557, 560 (1974); Williams v. State, Del. Supr., 301 A.2d 88, 89 (1973). Nevertheless, Doran argues that the use of his prior statement to Detective Sparks, which had been excluded from the State's case-in-chief due to the discovery violation, was also inadmissible in rebuttal for the limited purpose of impeachment. As authority for that proposition, Doran relies upon this Court's decision in Johnson v. State, Del.Supr., 550 A.2d 903 (1988). In Johnson, in fact, this Court did hold that the State's discovery obligation requires disclosure regardless of its intention to use a defendant's statement in its case-in-chief or in rebuttal. Id. at 913. However, in Johnson, the contents of a prior statement attributed to the defendant had not been disclosed, despite a discovery request, before the defendant testified. After the defendant in Johnson testified, the prosecutor sought permission to use the undisclosed prior statement for the purpose of impeachment. This Court noted that [i]f there had been full responses to discovery demands, the defendant might have availed himself of his constitutional right to remain silent, and not have testified. Id. Consequently, in the context of the circumstances presented in Johnson, this Court held that [t]o permit the prosecution to withhold a defendant's oral statements from discovery, and then use them in rebuttal, would unfairly penalize a defendant who chose to testify. Id. Doran's case is distinguishable from Johnson. Doran, unlike the defendant in Johnson, knew about the prior statement, attributed to him by Detective Sparks, before he elected to testify. Thus, with the complete knowledge of the prior statement, Doran could have decided not to testify. Compare Johnson v. State, 550 A.2d at 913 (quoting United States v. Padrone, 406 F.2d 560, 561 (2d Cir.1969)). However, when Doran elected to testify, he had an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. at 225, 91 S.Ct. at 645. Once Doran decided to testify and gave testimony that was inconsistent with his prior statement to Detective Sparks, he was precluded from using the trial judge's earlier ruling, which had excluded that statement from evidence, to provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. at 65, 74 S.Ct. at 356. The circumstances presented in Doran's case are similar to the situation addressed by this Court's recent decision in Condon v. State, Del.Supr., 597 A.2d 7 (1991). In Condon, the State failed to give timely notice of its intention to present expert testimony on the subject of child sexual abuse. See Wheat v. State, Del.Supr., 527 A.2d 269 (1987); Powell v. State, Del.Supr., 527 A.2d 276 (1987). As a result of that discovery violation, in a pretrial ruling, the expert testimony proffered by the State was excluded by the trial judge. Condon v. State, 597 A.2d at 10. Nevertheless, the State was subsequently permitted to use the expert testimony which had been excluded, for the limited purpose of rebutting a false inference that had been presented by the defendant during trial. In affirming the trial judge's ruling in Condon, this Court held that the defendant had opened the door to expert testimony for the limited purpose of correcting the erroneous inference the defendant had created, with prior knowledge of the State's contrary expert testimony that had been excluded. Id. at 12.