Opinion ID: 2514739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cross-Examination as to Whether Other Witnesses Lied

Text: [¶ 12] The appellant raises the issue of improper questioning techniques in regard to the questioning of his expert witness and in regard to his own cross-examination. One of the State's witnesses was Dr. William Heineke, a licensed psychologist and licensed professional counselor specializing in the field of child sexual abuse. Dr. Heineke assessed and counseled B.C., at the request of B.C.'s mother, between the time B.C. reported the alleged sexual molestation and the time he was killed. Dr. Heineke testified at some length about his sessions with, and evaluation of, B.C. [¶ 13] The appellant countered Dr. Heineke's testimony with the testimony of Dr. Rayna Rogers, a board-certified general psychiatrist, child adolescent psychiatrist, and forensic psychiatrist. During cross-examination, the following exchange took place between the prosecutor and Dr. Rogers: Q. Okay. Do you have any  you were in the courtroom yesterday when Dr. Heineke testified? A. I was. Q. Did you see all of his testimony? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. Do you have any reason to believe that he was lying about anything? A. Can you define what you mean by lying? Q. Well, when he took the witness stand and he testified under oath that when he first had contact with [B.C.] he made no assumptions. He made no conclusions about what he was going to find out and he started with a blank slate. Do you have any reason to believe that was a lie? A. I'm afraid it's worse than that. I think he simply did not understand the issue. So whether he was telling the truth or a lie doesn't matter, he simply didn't get it. [¶ 14] The appellant testified in his own defense. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the appellant about the testimony of several witnesses in two earlier trials involving the Forquer murder and B.C.'s murder. This exchange followed those questions: Q. And in those two trials, just like this trial, the only person in any of those trials that ever told the truth was you? A. I didn't make any comments, [Prosecutor]. Q. No, but I'm saying today your comments about those two trials was Mr. Martinez' and Mr. Seiser's when they testified about all those events and your involvement they were lying? . . . . Q. Based upon your observations about what happened in the first two trials and the allegations that [B.C.] communicated to this man right here and to a professional counselor that he went and saw, the only person who has told the truth in all of these proceedings is you? A. Well, [Prosecutor], I wish they would have tape recorded the conversation because  Q. Mr. Proffit  A.  you leave out  Q.  can you answer yes or no? A. I have not lied to you in this courtroom. Q. So the only person in this whole big mess where two people are dead and there's a kid that says you molested him and who is telling the truth is you? A. Yes, [Prosecutor]. [¶ 15] There were no trial objections to this line of questioning, so we review for plain error under the above-outlined standard. The first factor is satisfied because the trial transcript clearly provides a record of what transpired. As to the second factorthe violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of lawwe quote at length our holding in Jensen v. State, 2005 WY 85, ¶ 20, 116 P.3d 1088, 1095-96 (Wyo.2005): Turning to the prosecutor's cross-examination of Jensen, we note, generally, that a defendant who testifies in a criminal case may be cross-examined regarding his credibility just like any other witness. Gist v. State, 766 P.2d 1149, 1152-53 (Wyo.1988); MacLaird v. State, 718 P.2d 41, 47 (Wyo. 1986); Porter v. State, 440 P.2d 249, 250 (Wyo.1968). In Beaugureau [v. State, 2002 WY 160, 56 P.3d 626 (Wyo.2002)], however, we observed that there was a limit to the cross-examination of a criminal defendant: Nonetheless, it is likewise error and misconduct for the prosecutor to cross-examine a defendant using the lying or mistaken technique ( i.e., well, then if so-and-so said such-and-such, was he mistaken or lying?). Such questions are improper. If the prosecutor merely asked Beaugureau about what other witnesses had to say, allowing the jury to draw its own conclusions, the cross-examination would not have been objectionable. State v. Diggs, 272 Kan. 349, 34 P.3d 63, 72-73 (2001); State v. Manning, 270 Kan. 674, 19 P.3d 84, 100-3 (2001) (Questions which compel a defendant or witness to comment on the credibility of another witness are improper. It is the province of the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. (collecting cases)); State v. Stevenson, 70 Conn. App. 29, 797 A.2d 1, 7-9 (2002) (Such questions are improper because they require a defendant to comment on another witness' veracity . . . invade the province of the jury, create the risk that the jury may conclude that, in order to acquit the defendant, it must find that the other witnesses lied, and distort the state's burden of proof.) (relying on State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226, 234-39 (2002)) (collecting cases); also see State v. Walden, 69 Wash.App. 183, 847 P.2d 956, 959 (1993); and State v. Pitts, No. 47488-0-1, 2001 WL 1641225 at  (Wash.App. Div. 1, Dec.24, 2001) (per curiam) (use of word lying is misconduct; use of word mistaken merely objectionable). Beaugureau, ¶ 17. The reasoning for prohibiting this type of questioning was succinctly summarized by the Iowa Supreme Court: [A] defendant who is asked whether another person lied is commenting directly on the other person's credibility. The issue then is whether any purpose is served in asking a defendant whether another witness is lying. We think the predominate, if not sole, purpose of such questioning is simply to make the defendant look bad, as implied by the Maryland court's observation in [ Fisher v. State, 128 Md.App. 79, 736 A.2d 1125, 1163 (1999)] that the accused's answer is unimportant.    The accused's answer is unimportant because the accused is in a no-win situation. If the defendant says the other witness is lying, then the defendant is put in the position of calling someone a liar, a particularly unenviable state when the other witness is a law enforcement officer. See [ State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 787 (Utah 1992)] (holding such questions are improper because they put the defendant in the untenable position of commenting on the character and motivations of another witness who may appear sympathetic to the jury). If the defendant says a contradictory witness is not lying, then a fair inference is that the defendant is lying. But, as any trial lawyer knows, there may be many explanations for differing descriptions of the same event. People have different perceptions of the same conversation that affect how and what they remember. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of what was said; perhaps one person was distracted and did not fully or correctly hear the words uttered by the other person. People sometimes hear what they want to hear. It is unjust to make the defendant give an opinion as to who is lying when, in fact, it is possible that neither witness has deliberately misrepresented the truth. It is also unreasonable to expect the defendant to sift through the variables of human communication to offer an alternative explanation for contradictions in witnesses testimony. We also think the use of this tactic asking the defendant whether another witness is lyingis incompatible with the duties of a prosecutor. Unfairly questioning the defendant simply to make the defendant look bad in front of the jury regardless of the answer given is not consistent with the prosecutor's primary obligation to seek justice, not simply a conviction. Nor is such questioning consistent with the prosecutor's duty to the defendant to ensure a fair trial, including a verdict that rests on the evidence and not on passion or prejudice. [ State v. Casteneda-Perez, 61 Wash.App. 354, 810 P.2d 74, 79 (Wash. Ct.App.1991) (holding prosecutor's questions asking witnesses whether other witnesses were lying was contrary to the duty of prosecutors, which is to seek convictions based only on probative evidence and sound reason). State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 872-73 (Iowa 2003) (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted). [¶ 16] The admonition against asking the appellant whether other witnesses lied applies equally to asking any witness whether another witness has lied. State v. Manning, 270 Kan. 674, 19 P.3d 84, 100-01 (2001). That is because such questions invade the province of the jury to determine witness credibility. Id. The State clearly violated an unambiguous rule of law by asking both the appellant and Dr. Rogers whether other witnesses had lied. The violation was more egregious during the cross-examination of the appellant, where there were many such questions. [¶ 17] The third step in our plain error analysis of this issue is to ask whether the appellant was materially prejudiced. In his Brief, the appellant identifies the resultant prejudice as violation of the prosecutor's duty to ensure a fair trial by attempting to inflame the jury, and by putting the appellant and the jury in the position of having to decide who was lying. The State counters with the argument that, by taking the stand and purporting to give the jury the full truth, as opposed to what the earlier juries in the related cases had heard, the appellant invited this line of questioning. [¶ 18] We previously have held that an appellant cannot `open the door' to the type of improper questioning used by the prosecutor, but that an appellant's invitation or instigation is a relevant consideration in assessing the prejudice element. Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 15, 153 P.3d 256, 261 (Wyo.2007). We went on in Talley, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 16, 153 P.3d at 262, to describe the factors to be weighed in evaluating the prejudice caused by the were-they-lying technique: 1) the severity and pervasiveness of the misconduct; 2) the significance of the misconduct to the central issues in the case; 3) the strength of the State's evidence; 4) the use of cautionary instructions or other curative measures; and 5) the extent to which the defense invited the misconduct. [¶ 19] On their face, especially in light of defense counsel's apparent trial strategy which was to convince the jury that (1) the witnesses in the two murder trials all lied and (2) the appellant would clear it all up by testifying as to the truth in this casethese instances of the lying cross-examination technique would not, standing alone, constitute reversible error. This case is, in fact, quite similar to Talley, where we found that prejudice sufficient to require reversal had not been shown. Id., 2007 WY 37, ¶ 17, 153 P.3d at 262. On the other hand, the State's case was weak, consisting as it did of only three hearsay witnesses, and the misconduct went to the very heart of the case, which was a credibility contest between the appellant and B.C. By bringing in the testimony from the other trials, and quizzing the appellant as to whether those witnesses were lying, the prosecutor was allowed improperly to bolster B.C.'s credibility. [¶ 20] Because these errors did not occur in a vacuum, we must consider them together with all of the other errors that occurred in the trial of this case, and in doing so, we cannot say that they did not contribute to the verdict. In short, we are not convinced that, absent these errors, the verdict might not have been more favorable to the appellant. More will be said about this in our discussion of trial counsel's ineffectiveness.