Opinion ID: 2584196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plichta's testimony on cross-examination

Text: On cross-examination, the prosecution attempted to query Plichta about the questions the examiners had posed to him concerning his thoughts, when defense counsel objected on the basis that Plichta's statements to the examiners were inadmissible. The prosecution advised the circuit court that it intended to ask Plichta whether he told the examiners about his beliefs in aliens to which he previously testified, because the prosecution believed that Plichta had not in fact told anyone about those beliefs. In response, Plichta's counsel represented that he had shared his fear of aliens with her shortly after his arrest. The circuit court informed the prosecution that, if it was crafting its questions in order to impeach Plichta, then the court would give a limiting instruction that the jury should only consider Plichta's responses in weighing and assessing his credibility. Plichta's counsel asserted that, if the prosecution were permitted to impeach Plichta's testimony on the basis of his omissions, then counsel would have to become a witness to testify that, prior to the medical examinations, Plichta had informed her of his thoughts about aliens. The circuit court decided to allow the line of questioning by the prosecution for the limited purpose of impeachment and instructed the jury accordingly. Resuming its cross-examination, the prosecution elicited the following testimony from Plichta: Q. . . . Mr. Plichta, isn't it true that you did not tell Doctor Wade anything about your views that there were aliens amongst us? A. I can't completely recall what I told Doctor Wade. Q. Isn't it true you never told that to Doctor Gitter? A. I don't think I even used the term aliens. Q. Isn't it true you never expressed your obsessions in reading about these philosophies and religions dealing with individuals out to get you? A. They never gave me a chance. . . . . Q. Now, [alternative earth history] was something that was prevalent [in your mind] . . . leading up to August 1st, 2003, is that correct . . . ? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this was very important as far as [what] you believed then; correct? A. Yes. . . . . Q. . . . Is it correct that you believed that there were . . . humanoids or people who took the form of humans, that were not of this world that were living amongst us? A. That I currently believe that? Q. That you believed at the time of . . . August 1st, 2003? A. Yes, . . . I believe I said that. Q. Okay. And that was something that was pervasive, something very strong in your thought process; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And in fact there were good people who were out trying to help you and save you and there were bad people out to get you; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And these were the thoughts that were going through your mind on August 1st, 2003? A. On that date and there had been times before. . . . . Q. You knew [that] . . . one of the primary reasons you were [being interviewed] was to express to the doctors anything relating to your mental condition such that it might reach a level that would remove your criminal responsibility in this case; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And the prevailing thoughts on your mind as to what was going on in the time period around August 1st 2003 were these statements or positions or theories that you've expressed to the jury today; correct? A. Yes. I'm quite certain I mentioned all of that to Stojanovich as well as Wade. Doctor Gitter didn't give me the opportunity to bring any of the subjects up nor did he ask about them. Q. So in terms of Doctor Wade, you're pretty sure you mentioned this to him? A. Yes, I am. The next day, the circuit court conferred with counsel, explaining its interpretation of HRS  704-416: When we left off yesterday, we were discussing some of [HRS  ]704-416 and the limits to that section. . . . [U]pon further reflection and reading that statute, it prohibits examinations about facts and circumstances that were revealed . . . by the defendant pursuant to the examination. The scope of [the prosecution's] examination is aimed at what he didn't say, not what he said, and I think that's a distinction. And because of that I'm going to leave my ruling as it stands so long as [the prosecution] does not bring out facts and circumstances as they pertain to what was said. I'm going to allow it.