Opinion ID: 1103881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: exclusion of testimony by sanders of his personal background

Text: Upon objection of the state, the circuit judge did not permit Sanders to tell any more about himself than he lived in Columbus and began college in a Texas junior college. The amount of background information an accused should be permitted to give the jury is discretionary with the trial judge. It is entirely proper to permit an accused to give the jury a brief history of his background or information about himself. It should not be lengthy or detailed, but sufficient to let the jury know something about the man on trial. Sanders should have been permitted to tell more about himself than the judge allowed. The boundary of such testimony is for the judge. Sanders next complains the circuit judge refused to permit him to give his relationship to his brother. The record reveals the following: QUESTION: Is he older or younger than you are? ANSWER: He's two years older. QUESTION: Have you and Bill Sanders had a good relationship? ANSWER: Yes, sir. We did growing up. QUESTION: Did that continue? ANSWER: (Witness sighs) Well,  MR. ALLGOOD: If you Honor please, I am going to interpose an objection to this cause once again I don't see how the relationship between him and his brother has any relevancy. The state would object on that ground. THE COURT: The Court does not see the relevancy of that question at this point. QUESTION: Bruce, did you make any effort to try to improve your relationship with your brother? MR. ALLGOOD: If your Honor please, I, I  THE COURT: Sustained. [R.244] The circuit judge clearly told counsel he saw no relevancy of the question at that point. Neither do we. Counsel's relationship with his brother may have been relevant, but he was under a duty to inform the court why it was relevant, and not remain silent. Having failed to do so, he cannot complain here. Counsel's brief contains the following scatter shot statement: ... Appellant's defense was that he was acting on his brother's instruction without any knowledge of the nature of the substance or of the proposed sale of cocaine. In excluding this testimony the Court prevented Defendant from fully developing this defense and thereby committed reversible error. [Abstract and Brief for Appellant, pp. 32-33] Sanders was not prevented from testifying that he acted without knowledge of the substance of the package he delivered, or that he was acting on his brother's instruction. All of this was covered in his testimony. Counsel unfairly critizes the trial judge in his brief.