Opinion ID: 1383165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-Examination of Freeman

Text: Freeman's second claim of error presents more troublesome questions. For proof of the five counts of statutory rape, the state relied almost entirely upon the testimony of Freeman's thirteen year old step-daughter, who stated that she had submitted to sexual intercourse with Freeman on five separate occasions. Three other young girls, playmates of Freeman's step-daughter, testified concerning the charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Each girl related a separate instance in which Freeman allegedly attempted to kiss, fondle or indecently hold her. In each instance, the improper behavior purportedly occurred in the Freeman home. The testimony of Freeman's step-daughter provided corroboration as to each of these incidents. With a series of defense witnesses including his own wife, Freeman attemped to discredit the stories of the state's witnesses by showing that he could not have, or that he actually had not, engaged in the acts charged. Freeman also took the stand in his own defense and denied all charges of statutory rape, and all charges of indecent behavior involving his step-daughter's friends. In an attempt to bolster his defense, Freeman additionally sought to prove that he was not the type of person who would commit the kind of offenses charged against him. To this end, Freeman was allowed, over the objections of the state, to interrupt his own testimony on direct examination by calling two expert witnesses to testify as to his mental characteristics. [4] Freeman first called to the stand Dr. Edward G. Goodrich, a clinical psychologist from Washington. Dr. Goodrich stated that Freeman had been referred to him by a psychiatrist for testing, and that he, Dr. Goodrich, had interviewed Freeman and had administered a battery of psychological tests. On the basis of his interview and the results of the psychological tests, Dr. Goodrich testified that Freeman was not a sexual psychopath, and that the probability of Freeman's committing the type of offenses on charge was low. On cross-examination Dr. Goodrich was asked whether his opinion of Freeman's personality would be altered if he learned that Freeman had, at the age of 18 attempted to rape a 14 year old girl; Dr. Goodrich replied that his opinion would not change. Next to testify was Dr. Ralph M. Stolzheise, a Washington psychiatrist. Dr. Stolzheise testified that at the request of Freeman's counsel he had examined Freeman. He stated that his examination had consisted of an initial interview, after which he had referred Freeman to Dr. Goodrich for testing, and a subsequent interview, conducted after the results of the tests were available. In the opinion of Dr. Stolzheise, there was nothing to indicate that Freeman's personality was such as to involve him in the type of crimes charged. From his examination, Dr. Stolzheise concluded that it was highly improbable that Freeman committed the crimes of which he was accused. With the cross-examination of Dr. Stolzheise, the seeds of the controversy which engendered this appeal were planted. The district attorney initially inquired whether Dr. Stolzheise's opinion of Freeman's character would be modified if Freeman had been involved in prior conduct similar to that charged. Dr. Stolzheise answered that his opinion would change somewhat but that he was unaware of Freeman's involvement in any similar incidents. At this point, the district attorney handed Dr. Stolzheise a document, consisting of a sheriff's report and two handwritten statements, which he requested Dr. Stolzheise to read. The district attorney was allowed to state that the document was a certified copy of a criminal record describing Freeman's prior conviction for the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or indecent liberties. [5] After Dr. Stolzheise finished reading these materials, the district attorney resumed his questioning. Dr. Stolzheise stated that Freeman had made some mention of the prior incident, but that he had not gone into some of the details contained in the statements. Because the incident described had occurred twenty years prior to the date of trial, Dr. Stolzheise expressed some doubt as to its significance. Nonetheless, he testified that he would give it some weight, and that if the details contained in the statements were true, his opinion would be modified to a certain degree. However, Dr. Stolzheise insisted that additional consultation would be required before he could determine the proper significance to attribute to the incident. Having elicited this last statement from the witness, the district attorney promptly moved to strike Dr. Stolzheise's testimony. However, the court denied the state's motion, ruling that Dr. Stolzheise's testimony on cross-examination could be considered by the jury in deciding the amount of weight to give to his testimony on direct. When Dr. Stolzheise had completed his testimony, Freeman resumed the witness stand and his direct examination continued. He admitted having been convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor when he was 18 years old, but stated that he did not remember the age of the girl involved in the crime. Freeman similarly admitted conviction of petit larceny a short time after his 1948 offense. Although he went into detail concerning the circumstances of this second crime, at no time did Freeman dwell on the events that led to his 1948 conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On cross-examination, the district attorney focused on the issue of Freeman's personality. The district attorney inquired into Freeman's prior conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Freeman was asked whether he remembered the names of the two girls who had been involved in the 1948 incident, and he responded that he did. The district attorney next handed Freeman a copy of the record of his prior conviction  the same documents that had previously been given to Dr. Stolzheise  and Freeman was asked to identify as his the signature on one of the two handwritten statements. Freeman did not positively identify the signature; he said that it might have been his, although he was unsure because he did not usually sign his name in the manner that it was signed on the statement. [6] In response to further questioning, Freeman stated that he remembered the incident leading up to this 1948 conviction, but that he did not recall signing the statement handed to him by the district attorney. The district attorney then embarked upon a protracted interrogation concerning the factual circumstances surrounding Freeman's 1948 conviction. Numerous questions were permitted about the acts for which Freeman had been convicted. Many of these questions were specific in detail, and phrased directly from the statements supposedly written by Freeman and his victim. In effect, through this line of questioning, the jury was presented with an assortment of some of the most vivid and sordid details described in the statements of Freeman's alleged prior misconduct. The cross-examination culminated with an attempt on the part of the district attorney to introduce into evidence the entire record of Freeman's 1948 conviction, including the sheriff's report, the handwritten statement ostensibly made by Freeman, and the statement of the victim of his alleged attack. The court ruled that the record was hearsay and therefore inadmissible. The interrogation of Freeman concerning his prior offense was conducted over repeated objections of defense counsel which should have alerted the trial judge to the possible inadmissibility of his line of questioning. Freeman's responses to the prosecutor's interrogation were varied. He flatly denied the prosecutor's allegations as to certain details of the 1948 incident; at other times, he claimed that he could not remember specifically alleged statements or acts. Freeman also attempted to explain that he had been wrongfully accused of the 1948 crime, and that the father of his alleged victim had even apologized to him after his conviction. In this manner Freeman's trial on the charges brought against him in the indictment was suddenly, and for an appreciable length of time, in effect transformed into a trial on the issue of his prior misconduct. The state, in its cross-examination, sought diligently to prove the lurid details of the 1948 incident, while Freeman, forced to defend against these unexpected accusations, resisted tenaciously. It is the propriety of this trial within a trial which is questioned on appeal. Freeman argues that the trial court erroneously permitted the state to cross-examine on the specific nature of his previous misconduct. He contends that to allow such cross-examination    can do nothing more than prejudice the appellant before the jury. It certainly distracted the jury from the issues of this case. The state counters by asserting that its references on cross-examination to Freeman's prior offense were justifiable on any one of three alternative theories. [7]
The state contends first that by calling expert witnesses to testify that he was not a sexual psychopath and that he was not the type of person to commit the offenses charged, Freeman placed his character in issue, thereby opening the door to rebuttal by the state. Thus, it is argued that proof of the details of Freeman's prior offense was relevant and admissible in rebuttal. The determination whether proof of Freeman's prior offense was permissible rebuttal evidence hinges initially upon the nature of the evidence which was presumably to be rebutted, namely, the testimony of Dr. Goodrich and Dr. Stolzheise concerning Freeman's mental characteristics. Freeman apparently desired to raise an inference that, if he did not possess the type of personality which would dispose him to commit the acts with which he was charged, then in fact he probably did not commit them. In order to achieve this goal Freeman chose to adduce expert opinion testimony which would show that his mental condition as to a trait particularly relevant to the crimes charged was unblemished. For this purpose, Freeman was allowed to call two expert witnesses; both testified that in their opinions Freeman was not a sexual psychopath and was unlikely to have committed offenses such as the ones charged. Thus, in summary, Freeman used opinion testimony in order to establish his good character; the proof of his good character was, in turn, intended to serve as circumstantial evidence of his conduct. [8] Although it is commonly acknowledged that a person's character will frequently be relevant to the issue of his conduct on a particular occasion, character evidence is normally inadmissible for this purpose. Thus, in criminal cases, the state is as a rule forbidden from attempting to establish the guilt of the accused by initiating an attack on his character. Yet the rule precluding use of character evidence to show conduct has traditionally not been applied to the accused in criminal cases. It has consistently been held that the accused may, in an effort to prove his innocence, seek to establish his good character. The accused need not testify before seeking to prove his good character. However, general good character may not usually be shown; instead, proof must be confined to particular traits of character relevant to the conduct with which the accused has been charged. Moreover, the evidence must bear on the character of the accused at the time of the alleged acts. [9] The exception which allows the accused to submit evidence of his good character is almost universally observed in the United States, and has long been considered a fundamental protection. [10] A rule equally well established is that by presenting evidence of his good character the accused opens the door to rebuttal. Hence, the state may seek to show, either through cross-examination of defense witnesses or by calling witnesses of its own, that the accused's professions to good character are ill-founded. [11] In presenting its rebuttal the state is restricted to showing bad character for the particular trait, or traits, of character initially focused upon by the accused. [12] To this extent, then, in this case the state is correct in maintaining that Freeman, by presenting psychiatric testimony, opened the door to rebuttal on the issue of his propensity to commit the type of crimes with which he was charged. However, this observation offers no facile solution, for the difficult question is not whether the state was entitled to rebuttal, but rather the extent to which it could properly go in its endeavor to counter the evidence of Freeman's good character. [13] This raises the question of the permissible methods of proving character. There are three possible methods by which a person's character can be proven: first, witnesses can be called to testify as to the person's reputation in his community; second, witnesses can be called to testify from their own personal knowledge of the person as to their opinion of his character; third, testimony and evidence can be adduced to prove specific acts or conduct tending to reflect on the person's character. Although the issue has not previously been considered in Alaska, of these three commonly recognized methods of proving character, only reputation evidence is permitted in most jurisdictions. [14] However, the practice which thus favors reputation over opinion evidence as a means of proving character has been subjected to severe criticism by scholars. [15] This criticism reveals that the rule permitting evidence of community reputation but excluding testimony based on a witness' personal knowledge of an individual's character was the child of an historical misunderstanding. The widespread acceptance of the rule cannot be accounted for rationally; rather, as one commentator has observed, [o]nce a rule is established it often grows because it exists. [16] Moreover, it has been persuasively argued that community reputation is generally the weakest and least reliable form of character evidence. It has been pointed out that opinion evidence is usually more probative of the issue of a person's character than community reputation, while, at the same time, it is no more time consuming or prejudicial. It has further been demonstrated that skillful use of the accepted techniques for questioning a witness about reputation will, in the final analysis, achieve the same result that would be achieved by simpler and more direct questions calling for the personal opinion of the witness. Accordingly, the rule which permits reputation but requires exclusion of opinion evidence appears to do no more than preserve a hollow and confusing ritual, fraught with pitfalls for the inexperienced and the unwary. We can perceive no valid reason for the perpetuation of such a rule. We hold, therefore, that in Alaska proof of a person's character may properly be accomplished by means of either reputation or opinion testimony. [17] While there has been much debate concerning the wisdom of excluding opinion evidence, the authorities have consistently agreed that proof of specific instances of good or bad conduct should be inadmissible for the purpose of proving character. [18] Proof of character by evidence of specific acts is, compared with either reputation or opinion evidence, time consuming and distracting. Such evidence, furthermore, will frequently create the danger of unfair surprise. Evidence of specific acts is especially pernicious in the case where it is employed to show the bad character of the accused in a criminal prosecution. Faced with a showing that the accused has committed reprehensible acts in the past, the jury is simply likely to conclude that he is a bad man, and that he deserves to be punished regardless of whether or not he actually committed the offense with which he has been charged. [19] It is this high potential for arousing jury prejudice which has led to the long established rule that evidence of prior misconduct by the accused is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show that he is a man of bad character, and that he is therefore more likely to have committed the offense charged. In the words of Professor Wigmore: The law here declares a general and absolute rule of exclusion. It is forbidden, in showing that the defendant has not the good character which he affirms, to resort to particular acts of misconduct by him. [20] For the purposes of the present case, it is crucial to underscore the applicability of this exclusionary doctrine to the prosecution's rebuttal of evidence of good character put on by the accused. As Professor Wigmore states: The practical bearing of the rule [excluding evidence of prior misconduct introduced to establish the character of the accused], it is to be noted, is to exclude this class of facts on rebuttal by the prosecution; for use of bad character in any form is already forbidden to the prosecution until the defendant has opened the subject. [21] As we have already noted, when the accused affirmatively asserts his good character the state is, in fairness, entitled to rebut. But the door to rebuttal once opened must not be broadened into a gateway to jury prejudice. Hence, it is well settled that the state, in presenting its rebuttal, is limited to the use of reputation or opinion evidence; specific instances of prior or subsequent misconduct may not be shown. The case of Sun B. Lee v. United State, [22] furnishes an excellent example, There, the prosecution had been allowed at trial to show that the defendant had previously been implicated in criminal activity similar to that for which he was being tried. The defendant was convicted, and appealed, claiming that admission of the evidence of his prior misconduct was error. On appeal, the prosecution contended that the defendant had placed his character in issue at trial, and that the evidence of his prior misconduct was permissible in rebuttal. The court explicitly rejected this argument, holding: Nor are we persuaded, as the government contends, that the appellant `opened the door' to the admission of evidence of this nature.    For it is well settled that, even where a defendant becomes a witness in a criminal case and does put his character in issue, the prosecution may not then discredit his character by proof of specific acts of misconduct. [23] The foregoing discussion makes it readily apparent that in this case the state's insistent inquiry into the details of Freeman's prior conviction cannot be upheld on the theory that Freeman opened the door to the issue of his character. Through the testimony of Dr. Goodrich and Dr. Stolzheise, Freeman placed his character in issue; the state was entitled to rebut this evidence, either by showing Freeman's reputation in the community or by calling opinion witnesses  including experts such as the ones called by Freeman  to testify as to their personal appraisal of Freeman's mental characteristics. The record does reveal that the state was not given prior notice of the fact that Freeman intended to adduce psychiatric evidence of his own good character. Yet this fact does not justify recourse to an improper line of examination. The state's cross-examination of Freeman as to the details of his 1948 conviction was not admissible as rebuttal evidence of Freeman's character.
The state's second theory of admissibility is that the proof of Freeman's prior misconduct was directly and independently relevant on the issue of his intent with regard to the three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor charged against him. Although evidence of prior misconduct is as a rule inadmissible to show that the accused has a propensity to commit crime, we have consistently ruled that such evidence may be admitted if it is relevant for some other purpose. For instance, in Watson v. State [24] we held: Evidence that reveals the commission of an offense other than that for which the defendant is being tried is inadmissible if it is relevant merely to show criminal disposition. But such evidence is admissible, even when it shows the defendant's prior trouble with the law, when it is relevant to prove some other material fact. One of the most familiar instances in which evidence revealing the commission of another offense has been held admissible is when that evidence is relevant and necessary to show that the crime with which the accused is charged was committed with the requisite element of intent. [25] It is normally required that in order to be admissible on the issue of intent the prior misconduct of the accused must be similar to the crime charged and not too remote in time. Additionally, the intent of the accused must actually be in issue. [26] This last requirement deserves emphasis; for it is a requirement of substance, not of form. Evidence of other offenses committed by the accused will always be potentially prejudicial; for this reason, before such evidence is admitted, care must be taken to ascertain whether it is actually necessary in the circumstances of the particular case. Manifestly, where there is no dispute as to the issue of the accused's intent, evidence going merely to intent will be superfluous, and its only possible effect will be a deleterious one. Thus, in the words of United States v. Fierson, [27] to justify admission into evidence of an accused's prior criminal acts to establish willfulness and intent, it is necessary that willfulness and intent be more than merely formal issues in the sense that the defendant is entitled to an instruction thereon. While the question has not previously been ruled upon in Alaska, in other jurisdictions, evidence of prior sexual offenses committed by the accused has ordinarily been held to fall within the normal rules of admissibility; where such evidence was relevant on the issue of intent, it has been admitted. [28] Yet the law has also recognized that evidence of prior sexual misconduct is by its nature peculiarly apt to arouse the hostile sentiments of the jury. Consequently, courts have been particularly cautious in scrutinizing such evidence to assure, as a prerequisite to admissibility, that it is highly probative of the accused's intent and that the circumstances of the particular case are such as to demand specific proof of intent. Any doubt as to the relevance or necessity for such evidence has consistently been resolved in favor of the accused. [29] Within the context of a sex related offense, the classic example of proper use of prior misconduct as proof of intent is where the accused admits the act charged, but claims to have had a benign intent. A good illustration is People v. Goff, [30] where it was held: The rule is that when a defendant, testifying in his own defense, acknowledges the physical touch of a child but asserts his innocent intent, he definitely places in issue the necessary element of intent and the prosecution may then introduce evidence that the defendant has committed similar offenses upon a person or persons other than the prosecuting witness in order to rebut the testimony of the defendant on a point material to the establishment of his guilt of the crime charged. Although the rule stated in Goff will undoubtedly provide an accurate guide to admissibility in most cases of this nature, it should not be read inflexibly. Beyond the case where the accused admits a touching but denies culpable intent, there may arise cases where the acts charged are equivocal, and where there is a particularly close similarity and proximity between the facts of a prior offense and the facts of the offense charged. In such instances, the evidence of prior misconduct may be admissible despite the fact that the accused has not specifically raised the issue of intent. [31] We are of the view that in this case the detailed proof of Freeman's 1948 conviction falls far short of meeting the requirements for admissibility on the issue of intent. It must be noted that the relevance of this evidence was, at best, questionable. The subject of the state's inquiry was an offense committed in 1948, almost twenty years prior to the offenses charged against Freeman. Freeman was apparently not represented by counsel at the time of his prior conviction. [32] Moreover, the nature of Freeman's prior offense substantially differed from the offenses charged. As evidenced by the relatively light sentence given to Freeman in 1948, a distinction can be made between the case where an 18 year old boy makes indecent advances toward a 14 year old girl in his car, and the case where a 38 year old married man makes such advances toward the young playmates of his daughter in his own home. Adding to the probative weakness of the evidence of Freeman's prior offense is the fact that specific proof of Freeman's intent was simply not vital in the circumstances of this case. It is, of course, not contended that the evidence of Freeman's prior conviction was relevant to establish his intent with regard to the charges of statutory rape. As to these charges, there is little doubt that if Freeman committed the alleged acts, he did so with the requisite element of intent. Thus, the ostensible relevance of the prior crimes evidence is confined to the three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor pending against Freeman at the time of his cross-examination. A perusal of the testimony of the three complaining witnesses, taken together with the corroborating testimony of Freeman's step-daughter, reveals that the specific conduct with which Freeman was charged was in itself fairly strongly incriminating. A strong inference as to the culpability of Freeman's intent would have arisen from the specific nature of the conduct ascribed to Freeman by the state's witnesses. Nonetheless, it may be conceded that the acts with which Freeman was charged were not entirely unequivocal, and might have supported a plausible defense based upon lack of intent. Yet the fact is that such a defense was never advanced. It is crucial to note that prior to being cross-examined Freeman had already testified concerning the charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. His testimony made it obvious that he was not, in fact, basing his defense upon the innocence of his intent; instead, he flatly denied engaging in the conduct with which he was charged. Consequently, by the time the state began its cross-examination of Freeman, it had already become apparent that Freeman's intent with regard to the three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was not, and would not be, contested. Given this situation, it is simply difficult to perceive a compelling necessity for introducing evidence of other similar crimes on the issue of intent. Ultimately, the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes must be governed by balancing its probative value on a given issue against the potential for prejudice which it creates. Tenuous or marginal probative value of prior crimes evidence must never be allowed to serve as an excuse for implanting prejudice in the minds of the jury. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the highly prejudicial impact of the state's cross-examination far outweighed any value which it might have had on the issue of Freeman's intent.
The final alternative propounded by the state is that evidence of Freeman's 1948 conviction was relevant to impeach the testimony of Dr. Stolzheise. Since Dr. Stolzheise testified that his opinion would to some extent be modified if he learned that Freeman had previously engaged in misconduct similar to that for which he was on trial, the state argues that by showing that Freeman did, in fact, engage in such prior misconduct, it was in effect impeaching Dr. Stolzheise. This is in reality an attempt to bring in through the back door that which would not fit through the front. It is well settled that extrinsic evidence may be admitted to show specific error in the testimony of an opposing witness; however, extrinsic evidence is not permitted to contradict a witness if it relates to a collateral matter. As McCormick puts it: The classic approach is that facts which would have been independently provable regardless of the contradiction are not `collateral'. [33] Since, as we have already held, the evidence of Freeman's prior offense was admissible neither on the issue of his character, nor on the issue of his intent, such evidence must be deemed collateral, and therefore does not form a permissible basis for impeachment. Moreover, it should be noted that Dr. Stolzheise had been effectively impeached upon cross-examination by the state, and that proof of the details of Freeman's 1948 conviction could have had no additional value as impeachment evidence. In its cross-examination of Dr. Stolzheise, the state was allowed to hand him the record of Freeman's prior conviction. The jury was apprised of the fact that the record contained information concerning Freeman's conviction for the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or indecent liberties. The fact of Freeman's conviction was not questioned. Upon this basis Dr. Stolzheise stated that he would require additional consultation in order to determine the effect of the prior offense upon his assessment of Freeman's personality. We think that by this stage of the proceedings Dr. Stolzheise had been effectively impeached. Apparently the state shared this view below, since it moved to strike Dr. Stolzheise's testimony from the record. Thus, further impeachment would have been fruitless.