Opinion ID: 1889530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Gerald Ruter

Text: As with the other two witnesses, we shall restate and then summarize the objectionable testimony of Gerald Ruter as described by appellant in his brief: The prosecution then called Gerald Ruter, Esquire. After a few brief inquiries from Cohen to witness Ruter regarding Ruter's role in the case, the prosecution immediately directed an inquiry as to whether Ruter encountered any difficulties in performing his job as an auditor. Ruter testified that he attempted to enter [appellant]'s home and was denied access. He testified that he had to get a court order which was signed by Judge Murphy to permit access to the premises. He also testified regarding outbursts in court allegedly made by [a]ppellant in the civil proceedings and that it was his belief that these outbursts were incoherent and made no particular sense, were not rational and had nothing to do with the issues before the court. Ruter's testimony was similar to that of Francis and Twomey in that the testimony was not probative of any issue before the criminal trial jury but pertained exclusively to their perception of [a]ppellant and his bad conduct. Ruter was also allowed to testify that [a]ppellant had come to his home uninvited at some time during the civil proceedings. We summarize appellant's relevant objections: a. The State asked Ruter if he had any problems performing his job, and he described several problems, including the need to obtain a court order to get access to appellant's home. Appellant's only objection to this line of questioning was that certain testimony would be cumulative. b. The State asked the witness specifically whether the defendant made any outbursts in court, to which the witness responded in the affirmative. Appellant at no time objected to the answer or question. c. On recross examination, the appellant asked the State's witness whether appellant ever came to the witness' house when the witness did not want him to. The witness responded that he had. Appellant did not object at trial to the witness' answer.