Opinion ID: 1936045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Nickname Testimony

Text: During its cross-examination of Donna Walls, the wife of defendant Walls, the State asked her what nicknames she had heard Walls and Hernandez call each other. Walls' attorney objected to the question on the grounds of relevancy. The State responded that it was attempting to establish the depth of the friendship between Walls and his co-defendant Hernandez. The objection was overruled. The State was permitted to ask the question, and the following exchange took place: STATE: By what nicknames have you heard your husband and Frank [Efrain] Hernandez call each other? DONNA WALLS: Joe is [sic] known as Wild Man for awhile. STATE: Wild Man. Have you ever heard him called Wild Dog? DONNA WALLS: Occasionally. STATE: How did that come about, do you know? DONNA WALLS: No sir. STATE: And who is it that calls him Wild Dog? DONNA WALLS: Family. STATE: Have you ever heard Frank [Efrain] Hernandez call him Wild Dog? DONNA WALLS: No. On appeal, Walls contends that the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the introduction of this testimony. Walls argues that this line of questioning constituted prosecutorial misconduct, and was unduly prejudicial to his case. In support of the propriety of the question, the State argued at trial that the depth of the relationship between Walls and Hernandez was relevant to its case. First, according to the State, it was more likely that friends, rather than strangers or casual acquaintances, would act together in a serious criminal enterprise. Second, the State argued in the Superior Court that since the Pancoasts testified that the men who committed the crimes were strangers to them, identification was an issue in the case. Therefore, according to the State, the Pancoasts' identifications of their assailants, as two individuals who knew each other well enough to call each other by nicknames, added to the credibility of those identifications. A decision whether to admit testimony as relevant is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Baynard v. State, Del.Supr., 518 A.2d 682, 692 (1986) (citing Lampkins v. State, Del.Supr., 465 A.2d 785, 790 (1983)). We do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion in this case by permitting the State's question about Walls' nicknames. [10] A fortiori the State's question was not impermissible as a matter of law. Cf. Bowe v. State, Del. Supr., 514 A.2d 408, 411 (1986).