Opinion ID: 2583943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hostile Witness Declaration

Text: The determination of whether a witness is hostile is entrusted to the discretion of the district court. It should be based upon the demeanor of the witness, the witness' situation and relationship to and with the parties, the witness' interest in the case, and the inducements he or she may have for withholding the truth. State v. Manning, 270 Kan. 674, 681-82, 19 P.3d 84 (2001). Once a witness is declared hostile, the witness may on direct examination be subjected to leading questions, see K.S.A. 60-243(b), and be examined regarding prior inconsistent statements, see K.S.A. 60-422. In this case, the district court's declaration that Young's father was a hostile witness enabled the State to question him about the statements he had made to police that had incriminated his son. Young asserts that the district court's ruling violated his right to confrontation. Kansas law draws a distinction between a witness who merely fails to testify as  expected and one who gives testimony that is affirmative, contradictory, and adverse to the party calling the witness. Manning, 270 Kan. at 686. Only the latter witness is hostile. Moreover, a witness who does not recall making the earlier statement or statements or who simply refuses to testify is not considered available for cross-examination at trial, a factor important in Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis. See State v. Lomax & Williams, 227 Kan. 651, 656-62, 608 P.2d 959 (1980). [E]vidence of prior hearsay statements cannot be used to impeach a witness who simply refuses to testify or testifies that he cannot remember anything.... [W]here a prosecution witness refuses to take an oath or refuses to give testimony of any sort or responds with answer such as, `I don't recall' or 'I don't know,' his prior hearsay statements are not admissible under the constitutional confrontation rule.... .... [The Witness'] testimony was not affirmative, contradictory, or adverse to the party calling her ... [citation omitted]. She simply refused to testify, claiming that she couldn't remember.... The prior testimony of [the witness] was not admissible for the reason that, although present at the hearing, she was not available for cross-examination. 227 Kan. at 660-62. We see no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision in this case. Young's father's testimony at trial was certainly contradictory to his prior statements to the police officer; suddenly he was providing an alibi for his son and claiming that he had not seen Waters with his son on the evening of the murder. He also denied that his son ever confessed to him. He was not unavailable for cross-examination because of memory loss or a refusal to testify. To the extent memory was in issue, it appeared selective. See Manning, 270 Kan. at 690. The district court was in the best position to weigh the witness' demeanor. His relationship to the defendant and the inducements that relationship might provide for withholding the truth are equally obvious to this court. Defense counsel had ample opportunity to rehabilitate Young's father on his earlier statements and the circumstances at the time he made them. The jury was properly left to decide which of his stories was more credible. There was no abuse of discretion by the district court. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.