Opinion ID: 1198179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The District Court's Preclusion Of The Cross-Examination Of Officer Gobbi At Trial Regarding His Prior Testimony At The Preliminary Hearing Was Harmless Error.

Text: During the trial, while cross-examining Gobbi, counsel for Lamphere asked the question: And do you remember your testimony there [at the preliminary hearing] as being that he might have said it might be Methamphetamine? Lamphere's counsel was trying to impeach Gobbi's trial testimony by showing that he testified at the preliminary hearing that Lamphere said it might be methamphetamine in the vial, rather than that it was methamphetamine. The State objected to the question as being an improper attempt to impeach the witness. The court agreed, ruling: THE COURT: I'm going to sustain. Mr. Grow, the procedure is to show the statement, ask him to read it and give him an opportunity to review it. Do you have that statement? MR. GROW: I don't have the statement, Your Honor. I'm asking if he recalls making the statement. THE COURT: It's still improper procedure, so I'm going to sustain the objection. MR. GROW: May I ask, Your Honor, if he recalls making such a statement? THE COURT: Yes. Not specifics, but statements in general. Rule 613(a) of the Idaho Rules of Evidence, concerning the prior statements of witnesses, provides: (a) Examining witness concerning prior statement. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel. In the present case, counsel for Lamphere did not have the transcript from the preliminary hearing at which Gobbi allegedly stated that Lamphere said he may have possessed methamphetamine. However, pursuant to I.R.E. 613(a), counsel was not required, without a specific request, to show the witness the statement. Thus, the district court erred in its ruling on this issue. However, the court allowed defense counsel to ask Gobbi if he remembered making such a statement. Gobbi answered: That's possible. I don't remember his exact words. Defense counsel then asked if Gobbi remembered specifically what Lamphere said to which Gobbi replied: No, I do not. Thus, the record indicates that the question counsel for Lamphere sought to have answered by Gobbi was answered. The district court's incorrect ruling was therefore harmless error. In view of our decision to grant Lamphere a new trial on other grounds, we need not address the issue of whether the district court erred in denying Lamphere's motion for a new trial based upon the ex parte communication between a juror and the bailiff. For the same reason, we do not address Lamphere's cumulative error argument.