Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Questions During Alice Martini's Testimony Concerning Defendant's Alleged Adultery

Text: Defendant argues that during cross-examination the prosecutor improperly placed in issue his character by questioning Alice Martini about his alleged instances of adultery. Evidence Rule 47 provides that in a criminal proceeding, evidence offered by the prosecution of a trait of character of the defendant on trial may be admitted only if the court has admitted evidence of good character offered by the defendant. Defendant asserts that Mrs. Martini did not testify about his good character; therefore, the prosecutor's cross-examination of Mrs. Martini about his other girlfriends constituted improper attacks on defendant. During her direct testimony, Alice Martini testified that she had left defendant in September 1988 [b]ecause of his drug addiction and girlfriend. Mrs. Martini testified that defendant had just changed from a loving husband to a  just his drug addiction after becoming involved with his girlfriend. The prosecutor, during cross-examination, established that the girlfriend Mrs. Martini was referring to was Afdahl. The prosecutor then suggested that the defendant had committed adultery with another woman: Q.    [Y]ou still love your husband don't you? A. Yes, I do. Q. You loved him even when he was cheating on you, isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. He cheated on you for years, didn't he? A. I'd just known about it  I thought it was a year and a half but I found out later it was over ten years. Q. That was with Therese Afdahl? A. Yes. Q. What about Eileen Metzgroff? A. I never heard of her name. Q. You never heard of her name? A. No. Q. She used to call Arizona, she used to call the house, didn't she? A. No, she hasn't.         Q. Isn't it a fact that John had lots of girlfriends? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You know about Eileen Metzgroff who started going with him in 1976? A. I never heard of the name until today. Later in the cross-examination, the prosecution intimated that defendant had committed adultery with another woman. Q. Isn't it a fact that John had lots of girlfriends? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You know about Eileen Metzgroff who started going with him in 1976? A. I never heard the name until today. Q. You earlier told us that you didn't know the name Eileen Metzgroff, is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. How about Pat Chamberlain? A. I know Pat Chamberlain. Q. How long do you know Pat Chamberlain? A. I know Pat Chamberlain maybe  as old as my daughter, 20 years.   . Q. What was the relationship between your husband and Pat Chamberlain? A. Friends. She's friends of the whole family. Q. Were you still friends in 1988? A. With Pat Chamberlain? Q. Yeah. A. No. She's back here in New Jersey. I'm in Arizona. Q. Didn't you say there was a falling out between her and her husband, that's Bruce Chamberlain? A. Yes, there was. Q. And you don't talk to Pat Chamberlain anymore, do you? A. I haven't heard from Pat Chamberlain since my husband has been in jail. Q. Isn't it a fact that she was one of the women that your husband ran around with? Defense counsel objected, pointing out that there had been no proof of any relationship between defendant and Ms. Chamberlain. The prosecutor responded that there has been testimony produced by the defense that Therese Afdahl is the only woman that was associated with Mr. Martini. The trial court agreed: That's what this witness has said so far to her knowledge. Therefore I'll overrule the objections. It goes to the credibility of the witness. The prosecutor finished her cross-examination with the following: Q. You know about your husband and Pat Chamberlain, don't you? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you know any reason why she would be visiting him over the last year and a half? A. Visiting where, here? Q. Yeah. A. She was a friend. Q. He had a lot of women friends, didn't he? A. I'm just finding it out now. Defendant argues that the questions about Ms. Chamberlain and Ms. Metzgroff constituted impermissible attacks on his character, were outside the scope of the direct examination, and had no evidentiary support in the record. We disagree. Defendant argues that Alice Martini's testimony did not establish that Afdahl was her husband's only girlfriend. According to defendant, the brief comment that defendant was a loving husband was not sufficient to open the door to questions suggesting numerous adulterous affairs. The State contends, however, that Alice Martini's testimony that defendant just changed from a loving husband after he became involved with Afdahl implied that before that time his fidelity had been intact. Through the challenged questioning, the prosecutor properly was testing Mrs. Martini's reliability and believability on whether defendant indeed had been a faithful husband. That the credibility of a witness may be impeached on cross-examination is well settled. State v. Pontery, 19 N.J. 457, 472, 117 A. 2d 473 (1955); State v. Engel, 249 N.J. Super. 336, 375, 592 A. 2d 572 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 393, 614 A. 2d 616 (1991). The scope of cross-examination is a matter resting in the broad discretion of the trial court. State v. Sanchez, 224 N.J. Super. 231, 251, 540 A. 2d 201 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 653, 546 A. 2d 561 (1988). The trial court concluded that Alice Martini had implied through her testimony that defendant's infidelity with Afdahl was an unusual occurrence. That conclusion finds sufficient support in the record. Therefore, permitting the prosecutor to pose questions about other instances of marital infidelity did not amount to an abuse of discretion. Cross-examination relating to a witness's credibility need not be based on evidence adduced at trial. See State v. Crudup, 176 N.J. Super. 215, 422 A. 2d 790 (App.Div. 1980). That is not to say that the prosecutor could ask questions about topics for which she had no basis in truth. Particularly in capital cases we have recognized [I]t is well settled and virtually self evident that the cross-examination of [a] character witness by interrogation concerning prior acts of misconduct is pregnant with possibilities of destructive prejudice. The mere asking by a respected official of such a question, however answered, may well suggest to the jury that the imputation is true. E. Cleary, McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 191 at 457-58 (2d ed. 1972). [ State v. Rose, 112 N.J. 454, 504, 548 A. 2d 1058 (1988).] Nonetheless, we find, as did the trial court, that the prosecutor had adequate grounds to question Mrs. Martini about both Eileen Metzgroff and Pat Chamberlain. The proof with respect to Eileen Metzgroff is particularly strong. Defendant, in his January 30th statement, which was referred to during the direct testimony of Officer Trahey, included the following reference to a telephone conversation from Ms. Metzgroff's home in 1977: Q. Where were you when you spoke to her? A. At that time, at this particular time in Eileen Metzgroff's house, I guess. She had the same phone number she has now. Q. Now, Eileen Metzgroff is  A. I don't remember if I called her or she called me. Q. But you called from Eileen Metzgroff's house or apartment from New York City? A. Yeah. Q. Who is Eileen Metzgroff to you? What's the relationship to you? A. A friend, girlfriend. In addition, during Trahey's testimony in the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecutor produced a document memorializing a interview of Ms. Metzgroff conducted by Sergeant Minichino of the Prosecutor's Office. That report stated that Eileen Metzgroff said that she had met defendant on August 8, 1976. When asked how she remembered the exact day she replied, When you love somebody, you remember those things. She further stated that she saw defendant during his marriage and that she kept in frequent contact with him in Arizona through telephone calls. Finally, she indicated that defendant had told her that he was prepared to divorce Alice Martini in order to marry Eileen Metzgroff. In addition, Special Agent Peavy of the FBI testified that defendant had made contact with Pat Chamberlain during a December 1988 visit to New Jersey. The prosecutor, therefore, did not invent either name nor did she fabricate communications between defendant and the two women. The prosecutor had sufficient evidentiary support for her questions. Moreover, the questions were fair challenges to the implications of defendant's good character that the defense sought to have drawn from Mrs. Martini's testimony. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor's cross-examination of Mrs. Afdahl.