Opinion ID: 853074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Court Influence of State Witness

Text: Lampkins first contends that the trial court, in a hearing outside the presence of the jury, improperly caused Antone Harris to change his testimony. Harris testified as a witness for the State against Lampkins, his cousin. The court overruled Lampkins' objections to the State's leading Harris based on Harris' lack of forthrightness or eagerness to respond to the questions that were put before [him]. At the next break, after the jury had been dismissed, the court conducted a hearing to clarify its reasons for overruling Lampkins' objections. The court had heard Harris testify to the events of the evening on previous instances and explained that Harris' testimony on direct examination at trial was more labored and reticent than it had been before. [1] The trial court stated that it would exercise its discretion to allow the State some leeway in its questioning in order to develop Harris' testimony for the benefit of the jury. The use of leading questions during direct examination generally rests within the trial court's discretion. Williams v. State, 733 N.E.2d 919, 922 (Ind.2000). Indiana Evidence Rule 611(c) provides that leading questions should not be used in direct examination of a witness except when necessary to develop that witness' testimony. The rule expressly allows for leading questions whenever a party has called a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. [2] Harris and Lampkins were cousins. Although this relationship may not always create an identification, Harris testified that he had misled the police when he was first arrested because he was protecting his cousin, Lampkins. We find no abuse of discretion under the circumstances. Lampkins claims that the comments by the court at this hearing, with Harris present, caused Harris to change his testimony, and thereby violated Lampkins' right to due process and his right to confront witnesses. [3] Lampkins contends that a trial court judge violates a defendant's due process rights if the judge exerts influence on a witness that controls the testimony of the witness or drives the witness from the stand. See Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 57 (Ind.1995) (finding no due process violation when the trial judge advised a witness who was about to implicate himself of his right against self-incrimination and the witness subsequently refused to testify); see also Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (finding a due process violation in a trial judge's threatening remarks that were directed at a single defense witness, who was effectively driven from the witness stand). We agree with these general legal principles, but we conclude that Lampkins failed to establish that such a violation occurred. Lampkins speculates that Harris heard the trial court's remarks to counsel at the bench conference explaining the rulings on the State's leading questions. Lampkins further claims that Harris understood the court's explanation and that it caused Harris to change his testimony. This contention lacks any foundation in the record and fails for this reason. See Spurlock v. State, 718 N.E.2d 773, 782 (Ind.Ct. App.1999); and Boushehry v. State, 648 N.E.2d 1174, 1177 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). Cf. West v. State, 755 N.E.2d 173, 184 (Ind. 2001) (citing Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563, 567-8 (Ind.2000) (finding that absent some evidence in support of an argument on appeal, that argument amounts to mere speculation and cannot be grounds for reversal)). As the trial court proffered its explanation to counsel, Harris was sitting at the witness stand within a few feet of the trial court judge. It is possible, as Lampkins claims, that Harris heard and understood the court's explanation, but there is no evidence in the record to support either that conclusion or the claim that, if Harris heard the court, it affected his testimony. However Harris' demeanor may have changed, Lampkins made no effort to establish in the record that Harris had heard and understood the court's explanation, or that it affected Harris' testimony. Rather, Lampkins simply moved for a mistrial. Finally, there was no change in the substance of Harris' testimony after the bench colloquy. The subject matter of his testimony after this exchange was the events after the shooting. Before that point, he had been testifying as to the events at the Vault leading up to Jones' death. We conclude Lampkins has not established that the trial court improperly influenced Harris.