Opinion ID: 2103681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claimed Restriction of Cross-Examination

Text: Appellant argues first that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting crossexamination which was intended to show that another individual committed the crimes charged. Appellant contends that the trial court's ruling in this regard violated his Sixth Amendment right to explore matters which would contradict, modify, or explore the witnesses' testimony. See Goldman v. United States, 473 A.2d 852, 857 (D.C.1984) (citing Morris v. United States, 398 A.2d 333, 339 (D.C.1978)). He also contends that the court's ruling violated his due process right to present the defense that a specific third person committed the crimes. See Brown v. United States, 409 A.2d 1093, 1097 (D.C. 1979). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. Unquestionably, the accused's rights to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him or her are essential to due process. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); see also Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1109-10, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Johnson v. United States, 552 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989). However, these rights are not absolute, but rather are subject to the strictures of relevancy or to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. Chambers, 410 U.S. at 295, 93 S.Ct. at 1046; Brown, supra, 409 A.2d at 1097. A defendant may present evidence which tends to show that another person committed the crimes charged. Freeland v. United States, 631 A.2d 1186, 1189 (D.C. 1993); Watson v. United States, 612 A.2d 179, 182 (D.C.1992); Johnson, supra, 552 A.2d at 516. However, before such evidence can be deemed relevant it must clearly link the other person to the commission of the crime. Brown, supra, 409 A.2d at 1097. As we subsequently have explained, this perhaps somewhat misleading phrase means simply proof of facts or circumstances which tend to indicate some reasonable possibility that a person other than the defendant committed the charged offense. Johnson, 552 A.2d at 516. In determining whether to admit such evidence, even if relevant, the trial court must weigh its probative value against its prejudicial effect, including any tendency to mislead or confuse the jury. Id.; accord, Watson, 612 A.2d at 182; Brown, 409 A.2d at 1097. Appellant contends he was restricted in his efforts to show that it was Peter Bolding, the man who lived with the minor child and her mother during the critical time, who committed the offense. The minor complainant, M.D., testified during cross-examination that Peter Bolding had been living with her family for about two years and was still living with them at the time of trial. She also testified that she regarded Bolding as a father and that maybe she loved him. Although appellant concedes that there was no direct evidence linking Bolding to the crimes charged, he argues that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support his efforts to establish this defense. According to appellant, that circumstantial evidence consisted of the following: (1) that Bolding's first name, Peter, was the same as the name by which appellant was known; (2) that the child had affection for the father figure who resided in her home; (3) that she delayed, and was reluctant in acknowledging abuse; (4) that her mother initially expressed disbelief that appellant had committed the offenses; and (5) the child's mother sent her to live with her grandmother after the incidents and made a statement to a police officer that she would kill the perpetrator of the crimes. After a hearing outside of the presence of the jury and a review of the evidence related to the child's identification of the person who committed the offense, the trial court precluded appellant's trial counsel from questioning M.D. about the possibility of Bolding's involvement. In precluding the inquiry, the court was persuaded, and the record supports, that M.D. had identified appellant in specific terms as the person who committed the offense, including providing the name of appellant's sister. The court also found significant that the child had stated that she did not know where her attacker lived, and M.D. obviously knew that Bolding lived with her. The trial court concluded that the proposed line of questioning was no more than unsubstantiated speculation. The court held a second hearing outside of the presence of the jury concerning the remark that the child's mother, Ms. Washington, made to a police officer that she would kill the person who committed the offense. The officer testified that Ms. Washington did not refer to anyone by name. Ms. Washington testified that she did not know who the perpetrator was and that she did not recall to whom she might have been referring when she made the remark. The trial court determined that there was no basis for appellant's trial counsel to explore further with the officer or with Ms. Washington whether Bolding had committed the offenses. The court pointed out that the mere opportunity, which was, in effect, the basis for appellant's position, was insufficient to allow appellant to suggest that a specific person, Bolding, committed the offenses. On the basis of this record, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings. The court could permissibly take the view that the evidence proffered fell short of the relevancy requirement that it sufficiently link the third person to the commission of the crime. See Watson, supra, 612 A.2d at 182; Johnson, supra, 552 A.2d at 516; Brown, supra, 409 A.2d at 1097. While there is no requirement that the evidence prove or raise the strong probability that someone other than the defendant committed the crime, the evidence should tend to create a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense. In this regard our focus is on the effect the evidence has upon the defendant's culpability and not the third party's culpability. Johnson, 552 A.2d at 517. The suspicion engendered by mere opportunity because Bolding resided in the home with the child could be deemed insufficient to create the requisite link to the offense or to have any legitimate effect on appellant's culpability. See Watson, supra, 612 A.2d at 185 (Merely placing someone similar in dress and physical size to appellant close to appellant at the time of the charged crimes ... is `innocuous, innocent type activity ...' which invites jury speculation) (quoting Johnson, supra, 552 A.2d at 516). Other than the fact he resided in the household, there was no evidence linking Bolding to any crimes against the child. [3] Given the particular circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. [4] Appellant also argues that the trial court should have allowed further cross-examination of the police officer about the statement of the minor complainant's mother when she learned that her child had been abused because it was an excited utterance which reflected on her state of mind. At trial appellant sought to elicit from the officer that Ms. Washington must have suspected that Bolding had committed the offense. The trial court properly foreclosed an examination which required the witness to speculate about the meaning associated with Ms. Washington's statement, concluding that [i]t was just pure speculation on the officer's part that [Ms. Washington] was thinking of a person rather than thinking whoever that dastardly person was, I will kill him when I see him if I ever find out who it is. Extra-judicial statements which reveal the declarant's state of mind may be admitted as evidence when that individual's state of mind is in issue. Nelson v. United States, 601 A.2d 582, 596 (D.C.1991). Even assuming that Ms. Washington's state of mind was at issue, there was no basis, other than pure speculation, upon which the officer could offer an opinion in that regard, as the trial court concluded. Therefore, the court's ruling precluding such evidence was proper. See Monacelli v. Monacelli, 296 A.2d 445, 448 (D.C.1972).