Opinion ID: 1741534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: facts

Text: Marion, a detective with the Omaha Police Division, participated in the investigation of the Burnett and Hall homicides. On direct examination by the prosecutor, Marion testified concerning the nature and scope of the investigation, including the process by which police attempted to include or exclude possible suspects by interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence. Marion further testified that he arrested Kirksey in connection with the homicides. Defense counsel cross-examined Marion in detail with respect to the investigation, inquiring as to why certain leads were not followed and certain facts not developed. During his cross-examination, Marion admitted that Omaha police officers had arrested a suspect in a highly publicized homicide case who was later released when another man was charged with the crime. The cross-examination included the following exchange: Q: And at some point, it was your conclusion that Eric Kirksey committed these crimes, and the minute you reached that conclusion you quit investigating all other possible suspects; isn't that a fair statement? A: No, it's not. During further redirect examination shortly after this testimony, Marion testified as follows: Q: Counsel asked you if you knew who killed James Burnett and Terri Hall. Do you? A: Yes, I do. Q: Who? [Defense counsel]: Just a minute. I object to this. No proper, sufficient foundation. How does he know? A: He asked. Q: The objection is overruled. A: The individual Eric Kirksey (pointing). During recross-examination, which immediately followed this testimony, Marion admitted that he did not observe the homicides and that his identification of Kirksey as the person who killed Burnett and Hall was based upon his professional opinion. Following Marion's testimony, Kirksey's attorney moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Marion should not have been permitted to state an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case. The prosecutor argued that defense counsel had opened the door by asking Marion on cross-examination if he [knew] who killed those people? The district court denied the motion for mistrial, stating: The Court notes for the record that there were numerous questions propounded by defense counsel to the witness, Officer Marion. The Court would agree with the general principle that I think [defense counsel] is trying to build this point on, that if the prosecution on direct examination were to elicit the opinion of such a witness, that would be an objectionable and not a permissible bit of trial presentation on the part of the prosecution. The Court notes, however, that in the context of the extremely vigorous cross-examination by defense counsel of each and every method that Officer Marion was trying to explain the techniques used and the manner in which this investigation proceeded over a period of many, many months, that he was repeatedly asked by defense counsel things such as, do you have any direct evidence linking Eric Kirksey with this crime, et cetera. There were numerous questions which came up in that regard. And the point about the question of whether he had an opinion or knew who ultimately killed the two parties in this case, I find that his responses do not invade the province of the jury. Rather, I think it's abundantly clear to the jury what their job is going to be, is to sort through the evidence. And the Court does not findreally, I find hardly any prejudice. And even if there is some prejudice, it's of the Court's opinion of a very minor degree in allowing that question to be answered. Kirksey subsequently renewed his motion for mistrial based upon a lack of foundation for Marion's testimony identifying Kirksey as the person who committed the homicides. The district court again denied the motion.