Opinion ID: 2458924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plea bargaining is alien to trials by jury.

Text: Appellant claims that it was error for the State to be allowed to question co-defendant George Burton in regard to any plea bargaining efforts. During cross-examination by the State, co-defendant Burton was asked if he had made any effort for plea bargaining. He denied this. The prosecutor then asked during recross if he had not in fact offered to testify for the State in the instant case for a recommendation of a 30-year term. Appellant objected based on the previous response of co-defendant Burton. The court overruled the objection. When the question was asked again, Burton replied, I've thought about it. Upon approaching the bench, defense counsel stated that such questioning was prejudicial to the appellant and moved for a mistrial. The State's response was that the questioning went to the co-defendant's credibility. The initial basis for appellant's objection to this evidence was that the witness had previously answered the question. An objection must be made at the first opportunity to do so. Rule 103, Uniform Rules of Evidence, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 28-1001 (Repl. 1979). The objection was not timely here; however, since another trial is expected in this case, it should be pointed out that we held in Wilson v. State, 253 Ark. 10, 484 S.W.2d 82 (1972) that plea bargaining is alien to jury trials, [M]any reasons should be obvious why offers and counteroffers in plea bargaining have no place whatever in the evidence at jury trials.