Opinion ID: 2538620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: improper hearsay character evidence

Text: [¶ 9] The appellant contends that, on redirect examination, the prosecutor elicited improper hearsay and W.R.E. 404(b) testimony from Bilger regarding an incident involving the appellant and Bilger's neighbor. The appellant's trial counsel, not the prosecutor, first referred to the alleged incident during his cross-examination of Bilger and utilized it extensively in attempting to attack Bilger's credibility and support the appellant's theories of the case. [¶ 10] On cross-examination, Bilger testified as follows: [Defense counsel:] ... Isn't it true that when you were questioned by the deputy sheriff about this, that you told the deputy sheriff that Ron White had sexually assaulted one of your friends a week or two prior to this? [Bilger:] Yes. Q. So now you're telling us that you knew thator you thought Ron White sexually assaulted one of your friends two weeks prior to this, but you still had him stay over at your house? A. Yes. Q. And you weren't afraid; is that correct? A. In fact, it was the weekend before, I believe. Q. So you're telling us that you thought that Ron White was sexual[ly] assaulting one of your friends, but you weren't afraid of him? A. I knew he wouldn't touch me. I wouldn't allow it. Q. Mr. White's a lot larger than you, isn't he? A. Yes. Q. So if he were to decide to do something, there wouldn't be much you could do, would there? A. Yes. Q. What would that be? A. I do know how to defend myself. Q. Did your friend know how to defend herself? A. Apparently not. Q. Okay. So you weren't afraid that Ron White was going to do anything? A. I had too much company. Q. When you were staying with him alone? A. No, I was never completely alone with him. Q. Well, besides your young son, you were alone with him during that day, weren't you, on that Monday? A. My neighbor was there. Q. And the day before that, you were alone with him, weren't you? A. My neighbor was there. . . . Q. There was no mention of anybody else being present in the statements to police. A. [The victim] was the only one that c[a]me over while he was there. Q. When he was there, you were alone with him, right? A. And my front door stood open, yes. Q. Whenever Ron White was over there after you learned that heor thought he sexually assaulted your friend, you always kept the door open? A. Yes. Q. But you let him stay overnight? A. Yes. Q. So you weren't really afraid? A. I didn't feel he was going to hurt me. Q. Isn't it true that you made up that story about him sexually assaulting your friend to get him in more trouble than he was in? A. No. Q. Did you report that sexual assault? A. No, I was asked not to. Q. As you sit here today, you are going to tell us today that you weren't afraid of him? A. I had ways of defending myself. Q. You weren't afraid for your son? A. My son never left my sight. Q. And how are you trained to defend yourself? A. I have used my fists before. Q. So you would A. And I do know pressure points. Q. So you've beat people up before, is that what you're saying? A. No, I've had to defend myself. Q. Have you fended off sexual assaults before? A. Excuse me? Q. Have you fended off sexual assault[s] before? A. Once. . . . Q. But even though you knew Ron Whiteor you felt that he might have sexually assaulted your friend, you weren't afraid? A. No. . . . Q. And you weren't afraid to have those little girls come over after Ron White had told you that he hador after Ron White told you that? You say that Ron said that he had asked [the victim] for sex? A. I had not asked them to come over. On redirect examination, the prosecutor proceeded as follows: Q. I guess, since we talked about this sexual assault and your neighbor that was brought up, I am going to ask you about that, about why that didn't intimidate you. A. Okay. Q. Your testimony is that after that happened you didn't feel intimidated?
Q. Tell us what happened, who was this person? A. My best friend, [name]. Q. Where did [she] live? A. Right across the hall.... Q. These are the two doors that were left open? A. Yes. Q. That was done all of the time, before the Defendant was involved, after the Defendant was involved? You just left your door open, correct? A. Yes.[ [3] ] Q. What did [your neighbor] tell you happened? A. She told me that he had askedor she had gotten a back rub from him. Q. From who? A. From Ron. And that it proceeded to be a full body rub. And he had kept trying to Q. Let me stop you there. When, in relation to September 16, did this happen? A. I want to say not even a week before the 16th. Q. So there is no confusion, this was a consensual, as you say, body rub? A. Yes. Q. Go from there. A. She had told me that he had continued to try to lick her vagina, and she had told him to stop several times. She told me that he had rubbed his penis on her back, and she had asked him to stop several times.... Q. And [your neighbor], is she an adult? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you ever put yourself in a position where he was giving you body rubs? A. No. The appellant did not object to this testimony at trial. [¶ 11] This Court has recognized that a defendant may open the door to otherwise inadmissible testimony when he inquires about a particular subject, including evidence of prior criminal misconduct. Gayler v. State, 957 P.2d 855, 858 (Wyo.1998); see also Espinoza v. State, 969 P.2d 542, 546 (Wyo.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 818, 120 S.Ct. 59, 145 L.Ed.2d 52 (1999). When the defendant initiates a line of questioning, the prosecutor is entitled to make a permissible inquiry without crossing into prosecutorial overkill. Espinoza, 969 P.2d at 546. It is usually a basic function of redirect examination to allow a witness to explain his testimony elicited on cross-examination. . . . The opening of the door concept, however, reaches further and is an extension of that familiar rule. Succinctly stated, the opening the door rule is that a party who in some way permits the trial judge to let down the gates to a field of inquiry that is not competent but relevant cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening within its scope. Sanville v. State, 593 P.2d 1340, 1344 (Wyo. 1979). [¶ 12] We conclude that even if Bilger's testimony on redirect examination was otherwise inadmissible, the appellant's trial counsel opened the door to that testimony in cross-examining Bilger. It is evident from the cross-examination of Bilger that the appellant's trial counsel sought to utilize the alleged incident to impeach Bilger's testimony that she was not afraid of the appellant despite her claimed knowledge of the incident, establish that Bilger fabricated the alleged incident as part of her plot to get rid of the appellant, and emphasize that Bilger's actions were not consistent with her testimony as a whole or her testimony as to the alleged incident. In briefly eliciting the facts underlying the alleged incident relative to why Bilger might not have been afraid of the appellant under the circumstances, the prosecutor's redirect examination did not cross the line between permissible inquiry and prosecutorial overkill. See Espinoza, 969 P.2d at 546-47; Gayler, 957 P.2d at 859; and Sanville, 593 P.2d at 1344.