Opinion ID: 2612858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: perception of defense counsel's belief

Text: Larry Peckham, Jr., the defendant's son, testified that his father had told him of a plan to obtain favorable treatment on his drug cases by finding an individual that he could work into his plan and to kill them and to set it up to look as though someone else had done it, and to do away with that person and bring forward an eyewitness to turn in to the police as his part of the deal. The witness also related that defendant had stopped by his house on March 2, 1992, the day of the murder, and asked him to make note of the time as an alibi because he had just shot someone named Roy or Raul north of town. On cross-examination by Mr. Rathbun, Peckham Jr. admitted to having made a statement to the sheriff on March 25, 1992, regarding his father's involvement in the murder. The witness stated that he had been arrested for aiding and abetting his father's bail bond jumping and that he was concerned about his (the witness') parole being revoked, so he sought to provide information in exchange for favorable treatment. Further, the witness admitted that he had met with defense counsel on June 11, 1992, and after a discussion informed defense counsel that his testimony at the preliminary hearing had not been true and that he made up the story because of pressure surrounding his new charges and the potential for a parole violation. A tape recording of this conversation was made and was played for the jury. During redirect examination by the State, the witness testified about the circumstances in which the tape recording was made. The following exchange occurred: Q. Now, as far as this tape recording that Mr. Rathbun had with you in his office, how did that come about? A. I  I went down to talk to Mr. Rathbun and to help to try to convince him that  you know, that what my dad was telling him was true and to defend him well. Q. Had you talked to your dad before you went to Mr. Rathbun's office?
Q. Where did you talk to your dad? A. At the jail. Q. Will you tell us about those conversations, please? A. My dad had told me that he was worried that Mr. Rathbun was wondering whether or not he was guilty or not and  Defense counsel objected to the evidence as hearsay and urged that such testimony made him (defense counsel) a witness in the case. The trial judge overruled the objection. The defendant maintains that it was error to overrule the objection. He argues that because it would have been improper for the State to tell the jury I believe the defendant is guilty, it is likewise improper for the State to place before the jury defense counsel's opinions or beliefs regarding the guilt or innocence of the Appellant. Further, he contends that because the effect of the witness' statement was evidence that defense counsel did not believe his client was innocent, defense counsel was required to testify that he did believe his client was innocent. The State submits that defense counsel was not made a witness in the case because there was no testimony before the jury that defense counsel did not believe his client was innocent. Rather, the witness' testimony was only that the defendant had doubts as to whether his attorney believed in his innocence. Thus, there was no evidence which defense counsel could rebut by testifying that he had never had doubts about his client's innocence. The State also points out that in making his objection in front of the jury, defense counsel stated, I've never had any doubt in my mind about my client. Rebuttal evidence is that which is presented to deny some fact an adverse party has attempted to prove or has placed in dispute. State v. Burnett, 221 Kan. at 43. `The use and extent of rebuttal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed unless it appears the discretion has been abused to a party's prejudice.' State v. Phipps, 224 Kan. 158, 161, 578 P.2d 709 (1978). State v. Lovelace, 227 Kan. 348, 353, 607 P.2d 49 (1980). See State v. Synoracki, 253 Kan. at 65. There was no evidence here that defense counsel could have rebutted by testifying. There had been no testimony that defense counsel in fact did not believe his client was innocent. Rather, the witness' testimony reflected at the most that the defendant was concerned about whether his counsel believed he was innocent. The trial court noted that Peckham Jr. never said Rathbun told him he had doubts about the case; that would clearly be inadmissible. Peckham Jr. just said his father had doubts about the case. It's like any other statement the defendant's made to a witness in this case. As the State points out, Testimony by defense counsel that he had no doubts about his client's guilt would not contradict testimony that his client had worries about whether his attorney was wondering whether he was guilty. The testimony by the defendant's son did not make defense counsel a witness requiring him to testify in rebuttal. The statement by Larry Peckham, Jr., does not require reversal of the defendant's conviction. The testimony did not amount to evidence concerning defense counsel's opinion as to his client's guilt or innocence. The statement was made in response to a series of questions about what motivated the witness to approach defense counsel and fabricate a story that the witness' prior testimony at the preliminary hearing had been false. The testimony was given after evidence of four different statements by the witness: first, he testified against his father at trial on direct examination; second, on cross-examination the tape recording made by defense counsel in which the witness stated that his earlier statements in the case were false was played for the jury; third, the witness had testified against the defendant at the preliminary hearing; and fourth, the witness' videotaped statement to the sheriff's department on March 25, 1992, was played for the jury. The witness' statement was not made to show the defendant's attorney's opinion as to his client's guilt or innocence or even to show the witness' own opinion as to his father's guilt or innocence; it was made only to show the witness' reason for recanting his prior testimony at the preliminary hearing and to explain the witness' prior inconsistent statement. The statement was one of many made by a witness whose credibility was challenged by both parties in the case because he changed his story several times. Under the circumstances, reversible error is not shown.