Opinion ID: 853611
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Easley's Statement to Police

Text: Thompson also contends that the trial court erred in admitting a copy of Easley's statement to police. On direct examination Easley was asked when the conversation with Thompson about the Derringer had occurred. Easley responded, I think it was like the early part of December. Defense counsel then began cross-examination by asking Easley about a statement he had given to police in early December and handed the witness a copy of that statement to refresh his memory. The State insisted that the statement should be marked and introduced into evidence, and the trial court agreed that defense counsel had something in front of the witness that's not an exhibit. It concluded that defense counsel should have the witness identify the document before giving it to him. Thompson abandoned his attempt to refresh the witness's recollection with the document, but on redirect the State moved for admission of the statement to police. Thompson objected on the ground that the statement need not be shown to the witness [4] and also pointed out that, because he had asked the witness about only a small part of the statement, this would not render the entire statement admissible. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the entire eight-page statement. When asked for the basis of its ruling, the trial court responded that defense counsel had shown the statement to the witness first. Evidence Rule 612(a) provides that an adverse party is entitled to have a writing used to refresh a witness's memory produced at the trial in which the witness is testifying. Rule 612(c) further provides that [a] party entitled to have a writing or object produced under this rule is entitled to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. Thus, because Thompson handed Easley the statement to refresh his recollection about the timing of the conversation about the Derringer, the State was entitled to admit the part of Easley's statement relating to that incident under Rule 612(c). See Miller, supra, § 612.301, at 233 (The right to introduce the writing or object into evidence belongs solely to the adverse party; the party who refreshed the witness's memory cannot introduce the writing, although the `rule of completeness' may provide a vehicle for introduction of part of the writing by the refreshing party.) (citations omitted). Although the trial court properly admitted the part of the statement used to refresh Easley's memory, it erred in admitting the remainder of the statement over Thompson's objection. Nonetheless, this error, like the previous one, was harmless. Thompson contends that the statement contained a wealth of inadmissible evidence, but fails to point to anything in the statement that prejudiced his substantial rights.