Opinion ID: 1901687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err by allowing a witness testify as to hubbard's and james's prior criminal acts?

Text: ¶ 7. During the defense's cross-examination of CI Tina West, the following discourse occurred: BY MR. MOORE: Now Tina, have you ever pawned any jewelry? BY MS. WEST: Yes, I have. Q. Have you ever pawned any jewelry to any of these two ladies over here? A. Yes, I have. Q. I am going to ask you can you identify this bracelet right here? A. It's mine. Q. And how did Jeanette come in possession of that? A. I traded it for pills. Q. You didn't pawn that to her? A. [Inaudible answer.]    Q. Now then Jeanette still had this, did she not? She still. She still had possession of this particular piece of jewelry; did she not? A. Yes. ¶ 8. On redirect examination, the following colloquy took place: BY THE STATE: ... Now Mr. Moore also asked you about the bracelet and I think he introduced that that [sic] is marked as defendant's exhibit 2 and you said you gave that to who? BY MS. WEST: Jeanette. Q. And why did you give it to her? A. For pills. Q. And this is like money to get pills? A. (Affirmative nod). Q. What type of pills did you get from her when you gave her this bracelet here? A. Pain pills. Q. And when was that? Was it before or after this transaction we are here on today? A. I don't know. Q. You don't remember. How many different occasions did you get some kind of controlled substance from? BY MR. MOORE: I object. That is not proper redirect and fact of the matter, I want to approach the bench on that very statement. [Bench conference ensues.]    Q. All right, Tina, how many different times did you buy controlled substances, pillssome type of pain pillfrom these two defendants? A. Several. Q. All right. And did you always pay in cash or did you some times pay in jewelry? A. Yes, sometimes. Q. Was there any other way you paid them? A. No. ¶ 9. These colloquies show that the defense opened the door to the testimony of prior bad acts, and Hubbard and James cannot now complain that the testimony was prejudicial to them.