Opinion ID: 1730596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Relevant Facts

Text: Adam Johnson (Adam), the brother of the Defendant, testified that (1) the police officers entered the house while Defendant was in his room; (2) that the police left the house when Johnson would not come out; (3) that the Defendant surrendered to the police; (4) that the police then placed the nightstick around Johnson's throat; (5) that the officers never even tried to cuff the Defendant; and (6) that the police started the struggle. During the cross-examination of Adam, the State asked Adam if he interfered with the police which Adam denied. Adam admitted that his brother called the police names but could not remember Johnson doing it more than once. Adam recalled that the Defendant could not have been kicking the police that night because they were beating him real bad. Adam did not recall seeing his brother bite an officer. Adam denied telling the police that his brother was hysterical, only that his brother was drunk. The State then asked if Adam was in the jail when the Defendant was booked. The following colloquy occurred: BY ADAM JOHNSON: Yes, I was. BY MS. HEWES: And are you saying under oath that he was not screaming at that time? BY MR. VALLAS: Your Honor, I believe that that's separate and apart from the time that this melee took place. I know what she's trying to get at. We object to it. It's completely after all of this happened. BY THE COURT: I'll let him answer the question. ..... BY MS. HEWES: Do you remember him using any profanity then? BY ADAM JOHNSON: He could have  ..... BY MS. HEWES: And he was still kicking at police officers and still using screaming profanity, and he was still calling everybody an M.F. and trying to cause trouble then, isn't that right? BY ADAM JOHNSON: He could have been doing that. BY MS. HEWES: Are you telling this jury yes or no under oath, Mr. Johnson? BY ADAM JOHNSON: Well, yes, he was arguing. I don't know if that's what you're saying. BY MS. HEWES: My question to you is, under oath, was your brother up there in jail handcuffed, with one leg, still calling everybody up there an M.F.? BY ADAM JOHNSON: Ma'am, I don't remember him cussing, you know. ..... BY MS. HEWES: If you saw a video of it, would it refresh your memory of it? At this point defense counsel again objected to the line of questioning as irrelevant, and the court sustained the objection. The prosecution then asked: BY MS. HEWES: Now I'm going to ask you one more time, Adam. Isn't it true that even after your brother had been subdued by more than five police officers, had been taken to jail, was handcuffed and he had one leg on at the time, he was still attempting to attack officers and still screaming M.F. at everybody, in your presence? Is that true or is that not true? BY ADAM JOHNSON: Well, it could happen, yeah. BY MS. HEWES: I'm asking you yes or no. BY ADAM JOHNSON: Yes. ..... BY MS. HEWES: And you're trying to tell these ladies and gentlemen of the jury under oath that in front of his family and two police officers he was quiet and dignified and causing no trouble? BY ADAM JOHNSON: No, I didn't say that, Ma'am. BY MS. HEWES: The fact of the matter is he was causing a lot of trouble, wasn't he? BY ADAM JOHNSON: I didn't say he was calm and everything. I didn't say that. BY MS. HEWES: And you deny under oath telling Sergeant Glenn Davis that he was hysterical? BY ADAM JOHNSON: No, I didn't say that either. Adam later admitted that his brother broke free from the police and that he was resisting arrest. Two witnesses later and after the defense rested, the State moved to show the video tape in rebuttal to the testimony of Adam Johnson who simply could not remember whether or not the defendant used any profanity in the jail, and he simply could not remember whether or not he tried to strike an officer while in custody. The trial court recognized the video tape as impeachment evidence and found that: it would be an unfair position for the Court to assume to disallow this particular evidence in view of the repeated testimony of all the witnesses for the defendant as to the demeanor and conduct of the defendant. I understand that we're talking about a somewhat different situation at some time, but it's certainly not so remote as to not be relevant. That, coupled with the fact that this tape is in fact in direct impeachment of one of the witness' testimony, compels the Court to allow it to be shown to the jury. Officer Webb was recalled to the stand and the video tape played as he testified as to what was occurring.