Opinion ID: 1810730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was it prejudicial error to allow the prosecution to lead a witness on direct examination?

Text: The public defender also argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing the prosecution to ask leading questions of Freddie Mae Pope, the sister of Battites Wesley. [20-22] A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer desired by the examiner. McCormick's Handbook Of The Law Of Evidence, §6 (2d ed. 1972). Leading questions are not prohibited in Wisconsin on direct examination but generally they should be avoided. State v. Sarinske, 91 Wis.2d 14, 45, 280 N.W.2d 725 (1979). Sec. 906.11 (3), Stats., provides: 906.11. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation. . . . (3) LEADING QUESTIONS. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. . . . The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether the question is truly leading and suggestive and whether the circumstances justify a leading and suggestive question. State v. Sarinske, 91 Wis.2d at 46, Judicial Council Committee's Note, sec. 906.11(3), Wisconsin Rules Of Evidence, 59 Wis.2d at R191. The testimony of Freddie Mae Pope concerned the actions and statements made by Jordan, Mallory and Wesley after the shooting. She testified that she was sitting in an automobile belonging to her brother while it was parked near the Bungalow Tap on the evening of December 13, 1973. The three men entered the car, and she specifically identified Jordan as one of those men. They drove to her house and there she observed that Robert Mallory had been shot. After testifying that she could not fully remember the subsequent conversation at her home, the trial court allowed the prosecution to ask her leading questions. Leading questions may properly be used in order to refresh the witness's recollection when her memory is exhausted. McCormick, supra, §6, see, Malone v. State, 192 Wis. 379, 388, 212 N.W. 879 (1927). When the witness became confused and the prosecutor was not able to phrase a question without leading the witness, the trial judge excused the jury and allowed the prosecution to conduct a voir dire examination of the witness to ascertain her understanding of the question and her memory of the conversation. When the jury returned, the prosecution was allowed to ask a single question which was leading. That question and subsequent answer reads:  Q. Okay, now Mrs. Pope, directing your attention to the  that conversation at your house, to the best of your recollection, did Kenny Jordan say that he fired his gun at the man?  Mr. Croak: That's objected to as leading and suggestive.  The Court: Overruled. Go ahead.
[23] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the question. By the Court.  Judgment and order affirmed. COFFEY, J., took no part.