Opinion ID: 2316663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: witness' statements of bodily threats

Text: On a Friday afternoon after court let out, defense counsel by chance saw one of the state's key witnesses in a restaurant next to the courthouse. Counsel saw the witness speaking to one of the investigating officers. Suspecting coaching or the offering of some type of reward, defense counsel asked this witness about the restaurant meeting when court convened on Monday. The witness explained that his car had broken down behind the restaurant and that he had entered the restaurant to call AAA. He explained that it was a chance encounter when he met the detective in the restaurant. Defense counsel's questioning clearly and admittedly was leading to a suggestion that there was some impropriety in the witness' meeting with the detective. After defense counsel continued to pursue this line of questioning, the witness explained that the detective had approached him to ask if everything was all right, and the reason why was that the detective knew that the witness had been threatened in regard to testifying in this case. The witness' statement was in response to defense counsel's question, And when did you first see the detective? Defense counsel objected to the witness' answer as nonresponsive and asked that it be stricken. The justice allowed the answer to stand. In the prosecution's closing remarks, the prosecution said, Remember, [the witness] had several threats made to him. Threats that were reported to the police to investigate. Tapes of phone conversations where he had been threatened in regard to this case. The trial justice sustained defendant's objection to this statement but the trial justice failed to rule on defendant's request for a cautionary instruction in regard to the prosecutor's statement. The defendant argues that under State v. Burke, 529 A.2d 621, 631 (R.I. 1987), evidence of threats by unidentified third parties is not admissible absent a showing that the threats were made by or with the complicity of a defendant. Ranieri claims that he was not related to any alleged threats against the witness and that therefore the witness' statements should have been suppressed and cautionary instructions should have been given. Assuming we were to agree that the witness' answer was nonresponsive to defense counsel's question, we do not find the admission of the answer reversible error. We believe that aside from whatever proposition the Burke case stands for, the prosecution on redirect examination could have properly rehabilitated its witness by asking the witness to explain the circumstances surrounding the encounter with the investigating officer. When defense counsel directs a line of questioning to the conclusion that the witness is being coached or rewarded for his testimony, then it is only fair that the prosecution should be given the opportunity to rebut those allegations by explaining the circumstances surrounding an otherwise suspicious event. With respect to the prosecution's closing statement, the trial justice properly ruled that the statement must be stricken. There was no evidence introduced at trial in regard to recorded threatening telephone conversations. We must agree with defendant further that the trial justice should have ruled on whether a cautionary instruction was warranted. A cautionary instruction should have been given with respect to the prosecution's closing statements that were stricken. Nevertheless, the witness' statement concerning threats, which was properly admitted to rehabilitate the witness, is closely related to the prosecution's improper statements. We do not believe, therefore, that the trial justice's failure to give a cautionary instruction allowed wholly prejudicial evidence to be `indelibly etched' in the jurors' minds. See State v. DeCiantis, 501 A.2d 365, 367 (R.I. 1985). We will not disturb the justice's cautionary instruction ruling (or, rather, the lack of a ruling) because the justice's failure to `disabuse the jurors' minds of the prejudicial effect' of the prosecution's statements had a negligible effect on Ranieri's defense. Id. at 368.