Opinion ID: 2275536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cross-examination of appellant on his statements to William Jeffrey Mitchell

Text: Appellant claims that the trial court erroneously permitted the government to cross-examine him, without evidentiary foundation, on his statement to Tia Mitchell's father that he was sorry she was killed. Appellant testified that he never confessed to Mr. Mitchell and, at the first trial, Mr. Mitchell recanted under oath his testimony to the grand jury about the appellant's purported confession that it was his killing of Dennis Hines that led to the retaliatory killing of Tia Mitchell. Moreover, not even the fact that Tia Mitchell was killedmuch less who killed her and whywas proven at trial. We review this questioning for plain error because appellant did not object at trial. See Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706, 709 (D.C.1976). Thus, we will reverse only if the error is obvious and so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial. Id. It is impermissible for the government to manufacture evidence by creating an impression in the minds of the jurors through questions that imply the existence of facts, unless the factual predicate for the question is grounded in a good faith belief that those facts are susceptible to proof by competent evidence. Ali v. United States, 520 A.2d 306, 313 (D.C.1987). We agree with the government that the prior sworn testimony of Mr. Mitchell before the grand jury sufficed to give it a good faith basis to ask the question. Had the government called Mr. Mitchell, and had he denied that appellant confessed to him, he could have been impeached with his prior sworn testimony. See ( Darryl ) Jones v. United States, 719 A.2d 92, 93 (D.C.1998). Moreover, the questioning was limited and the government did not mention appellant's purported confession to Mr. Mitchell in closing argument. Therefore, we hold there was no plain error.