Opinion ID: 2428738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of request to call deputy prosecutor as witness

Text: During the trial of this matter, appellant called Robert Daniels as an alibi witness. Daniels testified on direct examination that he was playing cards and dominoes with appellant at the time the victim was murdered. On cross-examination, Daniels admitted that he never informed the police that he had been with appellant that evening, even after he learned appellant had been charged with these crimes. The following exchange then occurred between the deputy prosecuting attorney and Daniels: DEPUTY PROSECUTOR: All right. And his mother's name is Rowena Hampton? Is that right? MR. DANIELS: Yes, sir, it is. DEPUTY PROSECUTOR: Is she the same lady that was in the witness room telling you not to talk to me before you testified? MR. DANIELS: Yes, sir, she was. DEPUTY PROSECUTOR: And you refused to talk to me before you testified? MR. DANIELS: I didn't refuse. I just didn't have anything to say. DEPUTY PROSECUTOR: Did I ask you to talk? Did I request that you talk with me about your testimony? MR. DANIELS: No. At this point, appellant's attorney objected to the relevancy of this testimony and claimed that it was argumentative. Counsel also asserted that the deputy prosecutor was interjecting himself into the case. Counsel stated that the deputy prosecutor should have informed the court and defense counsel if Daniels had refused to talk to him. The trial judge did not rule on appellant's objection. The following exchange then occurred as cross-examination continued: DEPUTY PROSECUTOR: Mr. Daniels, I requested that you speak with me about your testimony, and you refused to talk with me. Is that right? MR. DANIELS: Under the advice of the family, the attorney, and everything, I was told not to say anything. DEPUTY PROSECUTOR: All right. MR. DANIELS: I mean, nobody else said anything. I didn't say anything. Defense counsel then informed the court that all he had told Daniels was that he did not have to be harassed by the prosecutor. The judge told counsel that he could address the matter on redirect. On redirect, Daniels testified that all the defense attorney had told him was that no one could harass him while he was down there. Daniels further asserted that the deputy prosecutor never explained his reasons for wanting to talk to Daniels, and that the deputy prosecutor had incorrectly called him Bill Lewis. At the conclusion of redirect examination, defense counsel called the deputy prosecutor as a witness. The court summoned counsel to the bench, and the defense attorney offered this explanation for calling the deputy prosecutor: He says that the first time he even makes it to try to inquire. It was sent to him in a letter back in May. He knew who this guy was. It has his address on it. If he wanted to try to talk to him, he could have used an office subpoena or something else. After excusing the jury from the courtroom, the trial judge admonished defense counsel to refrain from calling the deputy prosecutor as a witness in front of the jury. Defense counsel contended that the deputy prosecutor had acted in bad faith by implying that defense counsel had prevented Daniels from talking to the deputy prosecutor. Counsel requested that an instanter subpoena be issued for the deputy prosecutor, and claimed he would question the deputy prosecutor as to whether he had received the letter containing Daniels's name, lest the jury believe the defense had hidden Daniels from the prosecution. Appellant also requested a mistrial be granted. Both the motion for a subpoena and the motion for a mistrial were denied by the trial court. In appellant's present argument, he has cited no authority that holds that the specific actions by the deputy prosecutor in this case constitute prosecutorial misconduct or entitle him to any form of relief. Appellant merely argues and makes fleeting references to various portions of the United States Constitution. Appellant's failure to cite authority or make a convincing argument is sufficient reason for affirmance of the trial court's ruling on this point. Williams v. State, 329 Ark. 8, 946 S.W.2d 678 (1997). It is certainly not apparent without further research that appellant's argument is well-taken. Roberts v. State, 324 Ark. 68, 919 S.W.2d 192 (1996). In sum, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred by denying his request to call the deputy prosecutor as a defense witness in this case.