Opinion ID: 6358387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Ellison

Text: Brown's next claim focuses on trial counsel's cross-examination of Ellison. As indicated hereinabove, during direct examination, when asked whether she saw the shooter in the courtroom, Ellison responded that she did not know. N.T., 5/25/2005, at 149-50. Brown contends that on cross-examination, trial counsel, by using the phrase my client to refer to the man the police brought back in handcuffs to Smith's minivan for identification, opened the door to permit the Commonwealth, on redirect examination, to give Ellison a second opportunity to identify Brown as the shooter. This claim relies on  the following excerpts from Ellison's trial testimony, the first of which is from her cross-examination by trial counsel: [Trial Counsel]: Okay. After it happened, you did see my client in custody; is that correct? [Ellison]: Yes. [Trial Counsel]: And he was brought in handcuffs and put in a police car; is that what happened? [Ellison]: Yes.    [Trial Counsel]: [Y]ou and Ms. Smith were down on the south side of Girard Avenue where you showed the jury? [Ellison]: Yes. [Trial Counsel]: Police come by with my client; correct? [Ellison]: (Nods head) [Trial Counsel]: And were you with Ms. Smith then? [Ellison]: Yes. [Trial Counsel]: Where were you and Ms. Smith at that time? Were you still in the car or were you-- [Ellison]: We were still in the car. [Trial Counsel]: Okay. And is that the only time that you saw him after this incident? [Ellison]: Yes. Id. at 184-85 (emphasis added). This line of inquiry led to the following exchange between the prosecutor and Ellison during redirect examination: [Commonwealth]: [Trial counsel] stood up. And one of the first things that he asked you was: You did see my client in custody? Do you remember him saying that? [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Okay ... when he said my client, you looked over at his client; correct? [Trial Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. The Court: Overruled. [Ellison]: Yes.    [Commonwealth]: And then, after looking at him, you said, Yes? [Ellison]: Yes.    [Commonwealth]: Why did you say yes? [Ellison]: Because I recognized him. [Commonwealth]: You recognized him as you sit here? [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Do you recognize him as the guy who shot that other guy you didn't know? [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Then why in the world, when I first asked you, did you tell the jury that you don't know if it's him? [Ellison]: Because I didn't look at him as good as I see him now. [Commonwealth]: Okay. I want you to take a good, long look at him right now, please.    [Commonwealth]: Okay. Is that the guy-- I'm pointing to the defendant in the brown or beige jacket -- who tried to get your number that time? [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Is that the guy you saw at least a couple of times in the year prior to the shooting hang out in the area of Watts and Girard? [Ellison] : Yes. [Commonwealth] : Is that the guy who was talking to the guy who's now dead? [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Is that the guy whose face you saw as he fired approximately four bullets into the man?  [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Is that the guy who was running away? [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Is that the guy who then ran back towards you on the south side of the street and passed you? [Ellison]: Yes. [Commonwealth]: Is that the guy the police brought back? [Ellison]: Yes. Id. at 212-15. Brown now argues that trial counsel's reference to my client as the person the police brought back to Smith's minivan in handcuffs presumed a fact not in evidence, namely, that Brown was the man in handcuffs. Brown's Brief at 22. Brown maintains that trial counsel's cross-examination established that missing link, and that absent this error, the door would not have been opened to the prosecution's inquiry on redirect which resulted in her repeated identification of [Brown] as the shooter. Id. Brown insists that this harmful identification was highly prejudicial, as during closing arguments the Commonwealth emphasized Ellison's identification as one of three people (along with Smith and Sutton) who identified Brown in court as the shooter. Id. at 22-23. We discern no error in the PCRA court's determination that Brown failed to demonstrate that trial counsel's remark prejudiced him. Rule 907 Notice, 4/7/2016, at 18. While Ellison did not identify Brown directly during her direct examination, she did do so indirectly. She testified on direct that the shooter was the man the police brought to Smith's minivan for identification. N.T., 5/25/2005, at 172-80. The jury also heard both Smith and Anderson testify that the shooter was the man the police brought back in handcuffs, and these witnesses also both testified that Brown was that man. In addition, Officer Sharrod Davis, who chased Brown on foot immediately after the shooting, positively identified Brown and verified that Brown was the person who police arrested and brought back to the scene in handcuffs. N.T., 5/26/2005, at 142, 154, 163. As a result, Ellison's testimony on direct, when combined with evidence presented by other witnesses, established Ellison's indirect identification of Brown as the shooter. As a result, her eventual identification on redirect examination was not prejudicial to Brown. This claim is therefore meritless.