Opinion ID: 2569893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Our Analysis in McClaugherty I the Hearsay Introduced During Defendant's Cross-Examination

Text: {9} In McClaugherty I, we reproduced the colloquy between Defendant and Montoya, and repeat it here for ease of reference. During his testimony, Defendant denied that he handled or fired a gun on the night of the murder. On cross-examination, Montoya asked Defendant if he told his sister and his roommate what happened that night. Defendant answered: I had told them, yes, I was there and I ran. McClaugherty I, 2003-NMSC-006, ¶ 11, 133 N.M. 459, 64 P.3d 486. Montoya continued to question Defendant while holding papers in his hand: Q: Is that all you told them? A: I'm pretty sure. Q: You're aware I've got statements? You got copies of the statements. A: Yes. Q: So why are they lying about you then? A: Can you tell me what you're referring to? At this point defense counsel objected to the State's line of questioning. During the subsequent bench conference, defense counsel argued to the court: Defense: He's trying to impeach him with hearsay that's never been admitted into evidence. [Montoya]: Inconsistent statements of admission. Court: Do we have statements from these people that say something opposite to what he's saying? [Montoya]: When they were talking about the shooting, at first he  Court: I think what you're doing is the objection is really to the form of the question. You can ask him, Would it surprise you if somebody else said this, like as far as something  you know, why are they lying about you? You're assuming facts not in evidence, so I'm going to sustain the objection on that particular ground, okay? [Montoya] then returned to the cross-examination by asking Defendant, [s]ir, would it surprise you to hear that your sister, Sarah Tucker, gave a statement to the police 6/19/99, the day after or the day, that morning, that said that you admitted to her that you shot . At this point defense counsel objected again. At the bench conference, defense counsel argued: Defense: He is attempting to impeach him with extrinsic evidence of which I have no opportunity to cross-examine him with, under what circumstances or anything else. Court: Anything for your record? [Montoya]: Your Honor, [Sarah] Tucker is actually his sister. She's been subpoenaed. She's been available. She won't come up to our office. [Defense counsel] has had the opportunity to interview her. Court: The question that's being asked is whether or not he agrees with this or not is not  I mean because this person can always be brought in to explain it, so I'm going to allow him to proceed and allow him to ask the question, so I'm going to overrule the objection. [Montoya] then continued to question Defendant: Q: Do you remember the question? A: Yes. Q: Does it surprise you? A: Yes. Q: How about your roommate, Sherri Goen? Does it surprise you that she also made the same statement? A: Yes. Q: That you admitted shooting? A: Yes. Q: Bragged about it? A: Yes. Id. ¶¶ 11-14. During redirect examination, Defendant disagreed with Montoya's version of the girls' police statements saying that he had read the statements and they contained references only to him denying any shooting. At this point in the redirect, Montoya objected and argued to the district court that defense counsel just elicited a lie, stating: He said he shot. Do you want me to let that go? and They both admit that he said that he shot at the guys. Defense counsel responded that the State was free to bring in the declarant of those statements, but that Montoya's characterizations of the statements should have never come in in the first place. {10} In McClaugherty I, we agreed that the statements Montoya had made during his cross-examination contained hearsay not subject to any exception. Id. ¶ 16. We held that the cross-examination was improper in its use of hearsay, and it was not harmless. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. We reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. Id. ¶ 35.