Opinion ID: 1233313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the propriety of the prosecution's conduct toward defense witnesses.

Text: The gist of four assignments of error is that the claimed prejudicial conduct of the prosecuting attorney toward appellant and his witness Marcella Guiry entitled him to a new trial. The claim is that in each instance the prosecution attempted to influence the jury by improper tactics relating to the right against self-incrimination. We will consider the situations separately. The witness Marcella Guiry was the appellant's secretary. Before the grand jury she had invoked the fifth amendment and declined to testify as to certain matters, but at the trial she did testify as to those matters. She was asked, on cross-examination, if her answer to certain questions before the grand jury were the same as her answers in court. The appellant's claim was that she either had to say no, or disclose the fact that she had invoked the fifth amendment, and that either would be prejudicial. She was never placed in that position because an objection was sustained to the question. Appellant urges, however, that the asking of the question was prejudicial error; and relies on State v. Emmanuel (1953), 42 Wn. (2d) 1, 253 P. (2d) 386, and State v. Carr (1930), 160 Wash. 83, 294 Pac. 1016. These were cases of persistent misconduct and are not applicable here. There was, here, no effort to pursue the matter further after the objection was sustained. In such a situation as this, the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the motion for a new trial must be accorded great weight. The trial judge is able to observe any reaction of the jurors unfavorable to appellant by reason of misconduct of counsel, and is in a much better position than is this court to determine whether it has been prejudicial. Discargar v. Seattle (1948), 30 Wn. (2d) 461, 191 P. (2d) 870; State v. Van Luven (1945), 24 Wn. (2d) 241, 163 P. (2d) 600; O'Neil v. Crampton (1943), 18 Wn. (2d) 579, 140 P. (2d) 308; Marlowe v. Patrick (1935), 181 Wash. 647, 44 P. (2d) 776. The trial court did not see any prejudicial misconduct in the asking of the question to which an objection was sustained; and we find no abuse of discretion in his refusal to grant a new trial in consequence of the claimed misconduct. We turn now to the appellant's contention, regarding his own examination. When he took the stand, he limited his testimony rather rigidly to matters concerning his official position with various labor organizations, such as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Western Conference of Teamsters, and the Joint Council of Teamsters; the location of his offices in Washington, D.C., and Seattle; his employment of the accountancy firm of Friedman, Lobe & Block for his personal financial books and records. He did not testify with respect to the transaction, which was the basis of the indictment. No objection was made during the appellant's cross-examination, except that the matter inquired about was immaterial, irrelevant, and beyond the scope of the direct examination. (There is one exception concerning which we will make special reference.) He testified, over objection, that Mrs. Marcella Guiry took care of his books so far as the B & B Investment Company was concerned; that he could not identify her handwriting on certain exhibits; that certain accounts seemed to be in connection with his business; that there was a sale of property with Callahan, but he did not recall the details; that he authorized the sale of a Cadillac, and the amount received was nineteen hundred dollars; that the money was deposited in the B & B Investment Company account. All of which was entirely consistent with the appellant's theory of the case. Objections were sustained to questions as to whether he drove the 1952 Cadillac; when the final payment was made on the sale of the Beck-Callahan property; and whether appellant was in town when the proceeds of the sale were deposited in the B & B Investment Company account. When the question of who sold the car, do you know? was asked, counsel for appellant asked that the jury be excused, and stated to the court in the absence of the jury, That question being outside the scope of the direct examination and having been asked by Counsel, and since it is in effect a comment on the defendant's failure to testify with respect to the car and violates his constitutional rights, I move for a mistrial. The motion was denied, and the objection sustained on the ground that it went beyond the scope of the direct examination. Appellant urges that the rule is that the cross-examination of a defendant who takes the stand is limited to subjects to which the defendant testified, and that examination beyond the scope of the direct examination, in such cases, constitutes a violation of the defendant's right against self incrimination. When a defendant takes the stand in his own behalf he is subject to the same rules on cross-examination as other witnesses. State v. Putzell (1952), 40 Wn. (2d) 174, 242 P. (2d) 180; State v. Jeane (1950), 35 Wn. (2d) 423, 213 P. (2d) 633; State v. Ternan (1949), 32 Wn. (2d) 584, 203 P. (2d) 342; and, if he opens up a subject on direct examination, he can be cross-examined thereon. State v. Johnson (1935), 180 Wash. 401, 40 P. (2d) 159; State v. DeGaston (1940), 5 Wn. (2d) 73, 104 P. (2d) 756. The latitude to be allowed on cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Schneider, supra ; State v. Jeane, supra . The trial court adequately protected the appellant. The appellant is urging, as in the case of Mrs. Guiry, that, even though objections were sustained, the asking of the questions in itself constituted prejudicial error. Appellant again relies on State v. Emmanuel, supra , together with State v. Carr, supra ; but the circumstances which warranted reversal in those cases are readily distinguishable from those with which we are here concerned. We fail to find any indication that appellant's right against self-incrimination was violated, or that the court abused its discretion in its handling of his cross-examination.