Opinion ID: 1906701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: catrice cunningham

Text: The prosecution presented the testimony of Catrice Cunningham, an eyewitness to the crime. Cunningham looked out of her window on June 1, 1995 to see two people having a conversation near a dark blue car that she knew belonged to Melvin Terrell. She saw two men chase Yappy, shooting at him. While she did not directly identify the shooters, Cunningham did state that Melvin Terrell was at the scene. The attorney for Terrell then impeached Cunningham with a statement she gave to a defense investigator. [6] In that statement, she did not say anything about an argument or a blue car. Nor did Cunningham state that Melvin Terrell was at the scene. On redirect, the prosecution asked Cunningham about the circumstances surrounding the statement given to the defense investigator: Q: Ms. Cunningham, can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the circumstances were when you were visited by this defense investigator? A: When I was visited, when he came to see me to take that statement, Melvin's girlfriend was with him and I told [the prosecuting attorney] that I gave him  I didn't give him quite the exact information that I gave [the prosecuting attorney], but I gave him part of what I knew. It's been three years ago. I mean what is  how am I supposed to  Q: Ms. Cunningham, you started off when I asked you the circumstances of your giving that statement, the first thing you said was that the investigator was accompanied by Melvin's girlfriend? A: Yes. Q: That would be Melvin Terrell's girlfriend? A: Yes. Q: How did that make you feel when you saw Melvin Terrell's girlfriend? A: It scared me. Q: Was what you told the defense investigator about the, about there not being a blue car the truth? A: No. Q: Why did you tell the defense investigator you didn't see Melvin Terrell and you didn't see the blue car? A: Because I was scared. That's why I didn't tell him. Q: Were you afraid that it was going to get back to Melvin Terrell? A: I know  of course, I know it was going to get back to him. Q: Ms. Cunningham, why are you here today? A: Because I was subpoenaed to be here today. Q: Do you want to be here? A: No. Q: Are you happy about testifying in this case? A: No. Because I could leave here today and y'all might never see me again. Under these circumstances, the evidence initially elicited from Cunningham on redirect was properly admitted. Cunningham had been impeached by a prior inconsistent statement. The prosecution sought to rehabilitate the witness by having her explain the facts and circumstances that surrounded the prior inconsistent statement. The jury could infer that the presence of Terrell's girlfriend influenced Cunningham to give the investigator a statement favorable to Terrell. The statement that Cunningham might never be seen again, however, was not appropriate to rehabilitate the witness. The prosecution had already given Cunningham the opportunity to explain her inconsistent statement. Cunningham provided an adequate explanation. Further, the statement was not necessary to establish Cunningham's motivation in testifying, or her reluctance. The prosecution had already established that Cunningham only testified because of a subpoena, and that she did not want to be in the courtroom. Having elicited this evidence, the prosecution should have then stopped its redirect examination. The statement was prejudicial, as it implied that Cunningham had received some type of threat regarding her testimony. This type of evidence could very well have aroused the passions of the jury, and suggested a conviction based on their aversion. Additionally, the prosecution did not appear to have any evidence to form a well reasoned suspicion that Cunningham had received a threat, or if such threat had occurred, that it came from either Mercer or Terrell. Although it did not appear as though the questioning specifically sought a statement from Cunningham concerning an alleged threat, nonetheless, due to the danger of unfair prejudice, this statement should have been stricken from the record on proper objection or motion and the jury properly instructed.