Opinion ID: 1985352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Application of the Privilege to the Facts.

Text: In the present case, as we have seen, Anderson's attorney proffered to the court that there were some locations in the area of the alleged offense from which the officer's view of what occurred would have been obstructed. For the reasons stated above, however, such a proffer is insufficient, and counsel failed to avail himself of the judge's invitation to interrogate Officer Burton further in order to substantiate his professed need. Anderson contends that any further inquiry on his part would have been futile, because the judge had told him that he must surmount what he views as an insurmountable (and unjustifiable) burden. Although there was initially some confusion as to the questions defense counsel would be permitted to pose to Officer Burton and as to the showing which he would be required to make, we are satisfied that the trial judge's ultimate disposition was a reasonable one. [8] The trial judge initially sustained prosecution objections to defense counsel's inquiries as to whether Officer Burton was on the south side of the street and as to whether he was in a building. See pages 493, supra. Although the judge did not explain the reasons for sustaining these objections [9] and, at that time, declined counsel's request to approach the bench, it is readily apparent from her subsequent handling of the issue that these initial rulings were based on counsel's failure to lay a foundation for the questions which he was posing. Once the necessary foundation had been laid by the officer's marking of relevant locations and the subsequent defense proffer, the judge explicitly invited Anderson's attorney to ask far more probing and specific questions about Officer Burton's location. More troubling is the judge's remark that [u]nless you can tell me there's no building from which he could have observed those transactions, [it] doesn't matter that there were some. See page 494, supra. Indeed, the judge repeated the same general theme on several occasions. If the judge's words are taken literally, the accused would be obliged to make a simultaneously impossible and useless threshold showing. It is difficult to conceive a scenario presenting no relevant location in any given area from which the officer would have an unobstructed view. [10] Moreover, if all of the potential locations were in fact fatally obstructed, it would make little difference whether the officer was in one such defective location or another. [11] It may be that the judge misspoke and intended to stress her basic point, with which we agree, that a showing that some possible locations are obstructed is insufficient unless there is some reason to believe that the officer was in one of them. However that may be, we disagree with the notion that Anderson was required to establish that every location in the area was obstructed in order to make his preliminary demonstration of need. We are persuaded, however, that the later dialogue with defense counsel effectively dissipated any problem which the apparently misphrased standard may have generated. The judge's invitations for further defense exploration were both expansive and explicit. After the judge had explained to Anderson's attorney that you can ask him about obstruction; you can ask him about distance, and after she had invited him to make logical deductions from the officer's disclosure that his location was an elevated one, the judge further narrowed the issue: [i]f the building has trees in front of it such that from the angle this person claims to have been able to observe the transaction he couldn't have seen it, then you're entitled to know that. But you have to ask directlyweren't you in this building? (Emphasis added). In other words, the judge forthrightly invited counsel to make the very kinds of inquiries which we have held that he was entitled to make. Finally, the judge completed her explanation by telling counsel that he had plenty of room to explore, and suggested that as you get closer come back. Counsel never did so. He thus rested after making a showing of need which was based on an apparent misreading of Thompson and Jenkins, and which we therefore view as fatally deficient. Moreover, this is not a case in which Officer Burton's testimony was so uncorroborated, flawed, or contradictory that the judge was obliged to disbelieve it. On the contrary, there is considerable circumstantial evidence that the officer had a sufficient opportunity to observe what he said he saw. He testified unequivocally that his view was unobstructed. He recognized Anderson as an individual whom he had previously interrogated in the park; this was confirmed by Anderson. He described Anderson's appearance in the lookout to the arrest team; Anderson's arrest photograph conforms to that description. Officer Burton also testified that he observed Thompson place suspected contraband in a packet of cigarettes; that packet, with cocaine inside, was recovered from beneath an automobile after Thompson had thrown it there. Although Burton was the only witness who observed the alleged cocaine sale by Anderson, the circumstances provide significant corroboration of his observations. If his view had in fact been obstructed, it is improbable that he could have provided information which was so readily verified.