Opinion ID: 1557922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Trial Court's Rulings Compounded the Prosecutorial Misconduct

Text: In addition to the denial of the motion to recess to review the Hunt records, a claim we have previously addressed, defendant argues the trial judge erroneously overruled various defense objections during the State's cross-examination of Dr. Cenac. As discussed previously, the prosecutor commented that Dr. Cenac might have been evasive: He knows how to move away from a question when he wants to.... Elsewhere, when the Hunt records were presented to Dr. Cenac on cross-examination, the prosecutor responded to defense counsel's motion to recess as follows: There's no need. Clearly, he didn't review all pertinent records. So his opinion stands on what he. In defendant's view, the entire episode regarding the Hunt records tarnished Dr. Cenac's credibility in the eyes of the jurors. We find no abuse of the trial court's broad discretion in overruling defense counsel's objections to the State's cross-examination of Dr. Cenac. See La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 17. The inherent power of the court includes the duty to require that criminal proceedings shall be conducted with dignity and in an orderly and expeditious manner and to so control the proceedings that justice is done. Id. Although defendant argues these comments further served to impugn unfairly Dr. Cenac's credibility, we find no reversible error has been demonstrated. As we have previously explained, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to recess. Further, we do not find that the prosecutor's comments on Dr. Cenac's testimony merit reversal. The record reveals that when the trial court denied the defense's objection and motion for a one-hour recess, the prosecutor moved on and asked Dr. Cenac no additional questions about the Hunt records. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of the trial court's broad discretion in overruling defense counsel's objections.