Opinion ID: 1191763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the trial court err in refusing to exclude portions of the testimony of defendant's witness Keith Woods?

Text: Defendant makes two separate contentions concerning Woods' testimony. An understanding of the events leading to the testimony is essential to the resolution of each contention.
Keith Woods, called as a witness by the defendant, testified that during August 1992, on the day he was released from prison, McCrimmon and Minnitt discussed the El Grande Market homicides with him. About one week after this discussion, Woods was arrested for possession of cocaine. The police offered to drop the charges against him (which carried a potential sentence of twenty-five years) if Woods would provide information about other cases. When Woods failed to provide additional information, police again arrested him. On September 8, Woods told Detective Godoy that McCrimmon and Minnitt had said they robbed the market with a third person named Cha-Chi. In the September 8 taped interview, Woods referred to Cha-Chi as the Mexican dude who set it up and who had worked at the El Grande Market. Following the September 8 interview, Woods attempted to hide from the police to avoid testifying against his friends McCrimmon and Minnitt. He was apprehended by police and gave another taped statement to Detective Godoy on November 20. In his second statement (November 20), which also concerned his August conversation with McCrimmon and Minnitt, Woods said that McCrimmon and Minnitt had used the name Martin to refer to Cha-Chi and that Cha-Chi was Betty Christopher's boyfriend. [2] Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion in limine arguing that he should be allowed to introduce Woods' September 8 statement that McCrimmon and Minnitt said the third murderer was Cha-Chi, the Mexican dude who was a former employee of the market. Defendant claimed Woods' September 8 statement to detectives [was] admissible as it represent[ed] the declarations against interest of McCrimmon and Minnitt and exculpate[d] defendant by its reference to Cha-Chi. However, in the same motion in limine, defendant claimed that Woods' later November 20 statement regarding the August conversation with McCrimmon and Minnitt should be excluded. Defendant contended Woods' November 20 statement that McCrimmon and Minnitt had also told him, during the same conversation in August, that Cha-Chi was Martin, Betty Christopher's boyfriend, was inadmissible because it was inculpatory as to defendant and its admission would violate defendant's rights of confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court delayed ruling on the pretrial motion in limine. At trial, after hearing additional argument on the motion, the judge denied it. The trial court ruled that if defendant elected to elicit testimony from Woods regarding his conversation with McCrimmon and Minnitt, the state would not be precluded from bringing out Woods' other statements regarding that same conversation. Following this ruling, defendant elected to introduce Woods' testimony regarding all of the statements, including the statements defendant had attempted to exclude by way of his motion in limine. [3] Defendant now claims that the trial court erred by not excluding those portions of McCrimmon's and Minnitt's statements sought to be suppressed in his motion in limine.
Because the evidence demonstrated that Fong was not known as Cha-Chi, see supra note 2, defendant has consistently argued that Woods' September 8 statement to Godoy (that Cha-Chi was the third murderer) is admissible hearsay because it exculpates defendant. Defendant maintains that Woods' later statements to Godoy that clarified Cha-Chi and Fong were the same person were not exculpatory as to Fong, were not self-inculpatory as to McCrimmon and Minnitt, and were thus inadmissible under Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994). Defendant's argument misinterprets Williamson. In Williamson, the Supreme Court held that [t]he question under Rule 804(b)(3) is always whether the statement was sufficiently against the declarant's penal interest `that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true'.... 512 U.S. at 606, 114 S.Ct. at 2438 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, according to Williamson, the 804(b)(3) issue is whether the statements we're inculpatory as to McCrimmon or Minnitt, not as to Fong. See State v. Nieto, 186 Ariz. 449, 924 P.2d 453 (App. 1996) (To determine if a statement is truly against interest requires a fact-intensive inquiry of the surrounding circumstances and each declaration must be scrutinized to determine if it is self-inculpatory in light of the totality of circumstances.). Woods' September 8 version of the statements (that the third murderer was Cha-Chi who used to work there), which defendant claimed was admissible, and Woods' later version that Cha-Chi was Martin, Betty Christopher's boyfriend were equally non-self-inculpatory with regard to McCrimmon and Minnitt, the hearsay declarants. Woods' testimony as to the identity of the third murderer was based solely on a conversation Woods had with McCrimmon and Minnitt on the day Woods was released from jail. Defendant maintains that he should have been permitted to introduce some of Woods' descriptions of this conversation but to exclude other descriptions of the same conversation from the same witness. The trial court simply ruled that if defendant introduced some of what McCrimmon and Minnitt told Woods about the third murderer, the state would be permitted to introduce Woods' other statements about what McCrimmon and Minnitt told him in the same conversation. The trial court's decision is the correct approach. See State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452, 454, 657 P.2d 865, 867 (1982) (holding defendant opens the door to further inquiry on a topic by introducing that topic in its examination of a witness); State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 405, 636 P.2d 637, 653 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003, 102 S.Ct. 1638, 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982) (noting Arizona follows the English or `wide open' rule, wherein cross-examination may extend to all matters covered by direct examination ... and holding defendant opened the door to evidence relating to his selling heroin by mentioning in opening that he was a heroin addict). Defendant attempts to question the credibility of McCrimmon and Minnitt. The reasons for doubting the veracity of McCrimmon and Minnitt arguably support excluding their statements entirely but do not justify admitting only those portions that benefit defendant. For example, defendant contends McCrimmon and Minnitt were friends with Woods, they were blame-shifting, and the statements in question were non-self-inculpatory. However, these same factors apply to Woods' September 8 version of his conversation with McCrimmon and Minnitt, which defendant has consistently maintained is admissible and which defendant himself introduced. Defendant also claims the statement by McCrimmon and Minnitt is internally inconsistent. He points out that they told Woods Cha-Chi was used to gain entrance to the store, which was in the process of closing. Cha-Chi was able to convince the victims to let him in the store because he had worked there and was known to the victims. Defendant claims this statement contradicts other statements by Woods indicating Cha-Chi wore a mask when he entered the store. Defendant ignores the fact that Woods testified that he said Cha-Chi went in masked down or whatever because he, Woods, had simply assumed, without knowing, that Cha-Chi had worn a mask. Testimony does not demonstrate, as defendant contends, that McCrimmon and Minnitt told Woods that Cha-Chi wore a mask. The testimony simply demonstrates that Woods assumed a mask was worn. Had the issue been raised, it may very well be that all of McCrimmon's and Minnitt's statements concerning Cha-Chi would have been held inadmissible. Williamson indicates that only those statements within a confession that are individually self-inculpatory are admissible under Rule 804(b)(3). 512 U.S. at 599, 114 S.Ct. at 2435 (We see no reason why collateral statements, ... even ones that are neutral as to interest, ... should be treated any differently from other hearsay statements that are generally excluded.). Cf. State v. Daniel, 169 Ariz. 73, 74, 817 P.2d 18, 19 (App. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1121, 112 S.Ct. 1243, 117 L.Ed.2d 475 (1992) (In short it was not necessarily against [declarant's] penal interest to inculpate appellant, and he may have believed it would further his own interest by creating the possibility of a `deal' with police.). However, once defendant made the tactical decision to introduce some of Woods' testimony about the August conversation, he could not simultaneously preclude the state from introducing other evidence of that same conversation. Rather than have the state bring out the challenged portion, defendant sought to draw the sting by bringing it in himself. Nor will we second-guess trial counsel's tactical decision to introduce evidence that the murderer was Cha-Chi, even at the expense of opening the door to Woods' later statements. Fingerprint evidence and other testimony connected defendant to the crime. It is understandable that defense counsel would want to raise the issue of whether Cha-Chi, a person other than Fong, committed the murders, even at the expense of other evidence indicating that Cha-Chi was Fong. Having chosen a strategy which brought into issue portions of McCrimmon's and Minnitt's statements to Woods, defendant cannot complain that the court should have precluded the state from introducing additional portions of those same statements.
Defendant makes a secondary argument concerning the Woods testimony. He argues that Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), constitutionally entitled him to introduce the September 8 statements (presumably without the risk of the state introducing the November 20 statements) because those statements were exculpatory as to Fong. This argument misses the mark for several reasons. First, defendant continues to ignore the fact that the September 8 statement was at least partially inculpatory as to Fong. As noted above, Woods told police on September 8 that McCrimmon and Minnitt said Cha-Chi was a former employee of the El Grande Market. See supra Trial Issue I.A. This, in effect, excluded Martin Garza, who, the defense claimed, was the real Cha-Chi, but included Fong. Second, this case does not raise a Chambers problem because defendant was not prevented from introducing exculpatory evidence. No one sought to prevent defendant from using the September 8 statement. The trial judge simply ruled that if portions of the August conversation were introduced, the state would not be precluded from introducing other explanatory portions. Finally, we believe defendant reads Chambers too broadly. Chambers did not hold that trial judges must always admit exculpatory hearsay. Instead, in Chambers, the Court was careful to point out that the hearsay statements which should have been admitted by the trial court in that case were offered at trial under circumstances that provided considerable assurance of their reliability. 410 U.S. at 300, 93 S.Ct. at 1048. What defendant ignores is that in Chambers, as in Williamson, the reliability inquiry is focused on the hearsay declarants. Id. Defendant's position, that McCrimmon and Minnitt were reliable in only those statements that assist defendant's case, has no factual or legal basis. Defendant proceeds to attack Woods' credibility, but this inquiry misses the mark as well. Even if Woods were the hearsay declarant, what defendant would need to demonstrate (and what he attempted to show in his brief and at argument) is that Woods was unreliable in his later statements but reliable on September 8. Defendant fails in this regard because the factors to which defendant points as demonstrating Woods' unreliability apply to all of Woods' statements; not simply those defendant seeks to exclude. [4] II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying defendant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the newly discovered evidence being McCrimmon's testimony at his own, later trial? Defendant claims Christopher McCrimmon's testimony at his trial one month after Fong's trial constituted newly discovered evidence and the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate judgment based on this evidence. Defendant argues that the following areas of McCrimmon's testimony constitute newly discovered evidence: McCrimmon denied involvement in the El Grande shootings .... acknowledged borrowing Queen E.'s car earlier that evening [to purchase drugs], abandoning it at a location a few blocks from the El Grande.... McCrimmon testified that he was by himself at the time Queen E. loaned him the car ... that he knew [Fong] as simply an acquaintance ... [and] denied that [Fong] was known as Cha-Chi.... McCrimmon did admit knowing a person named Cha-Chi .. . [and] stated that he had taken Woods ... to Cha-Chi's house [for drugs] and that Cha-Chi lived close by. Defendant points out that, although McCrimmon was convicted at his own trial, defendant's jury need not be convinced of McCrimmon's innocence in order to consider his testimony to acquit [Fong]. Both parties acknowledge that McCrimmon would still be able to claim a valid Fifth Amendment privilege at any retrial in this case and that McCrimmon intends to exercise the privilege, if necessary. However, defendant contends he would still be able to introduce McCrimmon's prior recorded testimony under Rule 804(b)(1). We do not reach the merits of that contention. Motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored, and we grant them cautiously. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a trial judge's determination that a new trial for newly discovered evidence is not necessary. State v. Serna, 167 Ariz. 373, 374, 807 P.2d 1109, 1110, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 875, 112 S.Ct. 214, 116 L.Ed.2d 172 (1991) (citation omitted). The requirements for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are: (1) the motion must show that the evidence relied on is, in fact, newly discovered; (2) the motion must allege facts from which the court can infer due diligence; (3) the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence must be material to the issue involved; and (5) it must be evidence which, if introduced, would probably change the verdict if a new trial were ordered. Serna, 167 Ariz. at 374, 807 P.2d at 1110. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the potential effect upon the jurors of newly discovered evidence. State v. Medrano, 173 Ariz. 393, 399, 844 P.2d 560, 566 (1992). It was well within the trial court's discretion to have determined that McCrimmon's testimony would probably not have changed the verdict. See State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 251, 686 P.2d 750, 774, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1066, 105 S.Ct. 548, 83 L.Ed.2d 436 (1984) ([I]f the motion [for new trial] relies on the existence of a witness willing to testify and present the new evidence at a new trial, such witness must appear to be credible to the trial judge hearing the motion.). Defendant's strategy at trial was to show that he was not involved in the murders or the robbery of the market. McCrimmon's testimony (apart from that which is cumulative, discussed infra ) was that he was by himself when Ray loaned him the car, he was not involved in the shootings, he was in the area to purchase drugs, and he knew Fong only as an acquaintance. McCrimmon's denials amounted to nothing more than a repetition of defendant's own position that he was not involved in the crime in any way. McCrimmon's jury rejected his testimony and found him guilty of murder and robbery. More importantly, McCrimmon's testimony did not offer anything new in the way of support as to why defendant's theory of the case was the one the jury should accept. At least a portion of McCrimmon's new testimony was cumulative. Testimony that Fong was not known as Cha-Chi and that Cha-Chi was Martin Garza was introduced at Fong's trial. Fong's family and friends testified that he was not known as Cha-Chi, and Garza himself testified that he was known as Cha-Chi and that he sold drugs. Fong's jury was presented with substantial evidence of Fong's guilt. This evidence included: (1) Fong's fingerprints on items found on the counter and floor where the murders took place; (2) Ray's testimony that Fong was with McCrimmon and Minnitt when she loaned them the car found near the scene of the murder and was with them when they returned shortly after the murder; (3) Woods' testimony that the third murderer was Martin, the Mexican dude, who used to work there; (4) the uncontested fact that Fong was a former employee of the market; and (5) the testimony that the store was closing at the time of the crime and only a person recognized by the victims could have gained admission. [5] McCrimmon's complete denial of involvement, essentially nothing more than a repetition of Fong's unsuccessful trial strategy, would probably not have swayed the jury. We certainly cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.