Opinion ID: 2609791
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: testimony on witness credibility

Text: During the cross-examination of Officer Donnelly, McCone's counsel questioned Donnelly about the initial arrest of McCone and the following exchange occurred: [McCone's Counsel]: Your testimony was that you approached his residency and you then placed him under arrest before you spoke with him? [Officer Donnelly]: That's correct. [McCone's Counsel]: Then after he was arrested he agreedafter he was arrested, he agreed to talk to you? [Officer Donnelly]: That's correct. [McCone's Counsel]: So did you ever ask him where he was on the afternoon of the 19th or the 20th or 21st or any of those? [Officer Donnelly]: No, I did not. [McCone's Counsel]: Why? [Officer Donnelly]: I've never known him to tell the truth. [McCone's Counsel]: Your Honor, I move for a mistrial at this point. [emphasis added] McCone asserts that Officer Donnelly's statement, I've never known him to tell the truth, was error because it invaded the province of the jurywitness credibility. McCone is correct, witness credibility is the exclusive province of the jury; and neither expert nor lay witnesses should be permitted to testify that another witness is or is not telling the truth. Zabel v. State, 765 P.2d 357, 362 (Wyo.1988); Stephens v. State, 774 P.2d 60, 68 (Wyo.1989); see also Michael H. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6661 at 323-26 (1992 interim edition). The State argues that even assuming Officer Donnelly's comment was error, it was invited by the defense counsel. A testimonial error is considered invited where the objectionable testimony is responsive to a question posed by the objecting party's counsel. Pack v. State, 571 P.2d 241, 247 (Wyo. 1977) ( citing State v. Maggard, 104 Ariz. 462, 465, 455 P.2d 259, 262 (1969)). When on cross-examination counsel asks why, he opens the door for a range of responses that are almost without limit which, because the question is open and so broad, almost always can be said to be responsive. Officer Donnelly's answer, from his viewpoint, was clearly responsive to counsel's question. Nevertheless, the above does not give license to law enforcement representatives to in bad faith volunteer seemingly prejudicial information. What happened here did not violate the rule nor did it involve serious prejudice. See Whiteplume v. State, 841 P.2d 1332, 1339 (Wyo.1992). In this case the police officer was asked to volunteer his personal reason for a course of action and did so. Counsel is hardly in a position to complain. Invited errors are not normally grounds for reversal unless they go beyond a pertinent reply or are necessarily prejudicial. Sanville v. State, 593 P.2d 1340, 1345 (Wyo. 1979). Officer Donnelly's statement was responsive; and because the trial court immediately instructed the jury to ignore Officer Donnelly's opinion on McCone's veracity, it was not necessarily prejudicial.