Opinion ID: 166399
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commenting on and Eliciting Evidence of Codefendant's Attempt to Influence Witnesses

Text: 104 Mr. Thornburg contends that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony that the Andersons tried to influence the testimony of Jatone Kennedy, victim Smith's girlfriend. Kennedy testified that Smith went to get her purse from Scott's house about 4 a.m. on the 28th and that she never saw him again. On direct examination the prosecutor asked: 105 Q. Ma'am, has anybody approached you in this case about your testimony? 106 A. No. 107 Q. Nobody has? 108 A. I think in the beginning there were some people that tried to convince me to say things differently than — I mean, nobody — 109 Q. Nobody twisted your arm. A. Right 110 Q. Who approached you, ma'am, about this case? 111 A. Corky [Mrs.] Anderson. 112 Tr. II at 216. In contrast to Huber, Kennedy had uttered no prior inconsistent statement. 113 Mr. Thornburg further complains that the prosecutor stated in closing: 114 [Mr. Huber] also told you Corky Anderson tries to influence his testimony, Corky and Glenn. And first she lied and gave a story that Glenn went home with them. . . . Why are you creating alibis? Why do you have to create a situation if you haven't done anything wrong? Tr. IV at 103. 115 We agree with Mr. Thornburg that it may have been improper for the prosecutor to elicit Mrs. Anderson's attempt to influence Kennedy or to argue that Anderson's attempt to create an alibi was evidence of Mr. Thornburg's guilt. 116 The state makes no real attempt to justify the conduct. Nevertheless, the real damage to Mr. Thornburg's alibi defense came from the testimony of government witnesses regarding the events at the time of the murder, not evidence regarding the Andersons' apparently feeble attempts to influence witnesses. 117