Opinion ID: 1203980
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did The State's Cross-examination Of The Defendant Require Production Of A Verification Witness?

Text: A review of the transcript requires us to answer this question, No. The questions asked relating to conversations with a witness who was not then called were in no way prejudicial to the defendant. They did not involve any insinuations relating to prior convictions, other crimes, prior bad acts or any other prejudicial matter. The answers given were clear and unambiguous and where there was any possibility of being detrimental to the state they were unimpeached and therefore constituted unrefuted testimony before the jury. There being absolutely no prejudice shown by the questions asked or the answers given, no error has been committed. Denial Of Defendant's Motion In Limine To Prohibit State From Soliciting Testimony As To Defendant's Marital Status The defendant has raised the question that prejudicial error was committed by the trial court by reason of its ruling denying the defendant's motion to prohibit the state from going into the question of the defendant's marital status to her present husband. It appears that the defendant and her husband had lived together for some period of time prior to the death of the defendant's mother without benefit of matrimony. The only reference to this matter was whether or not the deceased was aware of the situation, if it was against her approval and did it, therefore, cause some dissension between the defendant and her mother. A review of all the testimony fails to show any prejudice by reason of any questions asked in relation to this subject. There was testimony that would be resolved by the triers of fact as to whether this situation did cause any dissension between the parties. The matter was not presented in any manner that would infer to the jury that the defendant had committed a crime or in any way characterized the relationship as other bad acts as that term has been used in the criminal law. We find no support for this objection and the defendant has cited no authorities in support thereof.  Was The Jury Tainted Because Two Members Read A Newspaper Item Which Referred To A Retrial Of The Defendant? After the jury had been selected on a Friday and before the trial commenced on Monday, the jurors were allowed to go home. On Friday evening a local newspaper ran an article headlined Woman's Retrial in Slaying to Get Under Way Monday. The body of the article stated that the jury had been selected and who the presiding judge would be. No mention was made of a prior conviction. On Monday, prior to beginning the trial, the jurors were brought in individually before the court and counsel and asked about the article and if they had seen and read it. Only two jurors indicated they had ever seen the article and both testified that as soon as they saw it related to the case that was to be tried, they put it aside. Both jurors testified that it meant nothing to them, they assumed nothing from the article other than the trial was to start. They both indicated no bias or prejudice because of the article and that they would both be fair and impartial in the trial of the case. In view of the references made during the trial to former testimony and former hearings as heretofore covered in this opinion, we find nothing that would justify the court in assuming that the jurors were in any way prejudiced or tainted. Where jurors upon being questioned admit they have read and remembered an article pertaining to the case but state that they have not formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence of the defendant, it has been held that a failure to strike such jurors for cause is not an abuse of the court's discretion. State v. Hall, 18 Ariz. App. 593, 504 P.2d 534 (1972). The same logic is applicable to the question presented in this case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. CAMERON, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., HAYS, J., and SANDRA D. O'CONNOR, Superior Court Judge, concur. Note: Justices LORNA E. LOCKWOOD and WILLIAM A. HOLOHAN did not participate in the determination of this matter and Judges WILLIAM W. NABOURS and SANDRA D. O'CONNOR were called to sit in their stead.