Opinion ID: 2519737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: John Derr

Text: The State called John Derr as a witness. Derr exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to testify. However, he was granted use immunity, whereby the State agreed not to use any of his testimony against him. Derr then testified that he had known Gomez for several years, and that Gomez had told him that he had shot at the deputy. The district court limited several areas of cross-examination that Gomez attempted to pursue. Derr admitted that he had been on methamphetamine for fifteen straight days around the time of his conversations with Gomez. Gomez asked Derr how were you getting the methamphetamine into your body for those 15 days? A relevance objection was sustained. This is not errorthe jury heard that Derr was on the drug; the method of getting it into his body is of little relevance. The district court also sustained objections to questions about where Derr got money to buy the drug. This too was irrelevant. Gomez also questioned Derr about the immunity agreement. He asked Derr: You have been given use immunity here, so any crimes you admit to this prosecutor is not going to prosecute you for, right? The State objected to this question, arguing that it misstated the agreement. The district court sustained the objection, stating: I am not going to have this witness testifying with regard to the legal ramifications of use immunity. There is no error. The jury heard that Derr had gotten use immunity and that the prosecutor agreed not to use Derr's testimony against him; use immunity does not prevent the State from prosecuting Derr for any crimes; it simply prevents the State from using Derr's testimony in that case. Later, Gomez asked Derr: you've informed on other people to help yourself out of criminal cases in the past, haven't you? The State objected on the grounds of relevance and this objection was sustained. This is a relevant question. If Derr had informed on others in exchange for non-prosecution, it could make it more likely that he would do so in Gomez's case. Gomez also asked Derr if he had worked with the police in doing reverse stings. The State objected on the basis of relevance. This objection was sustained. This is also a relevant question: the extent to which Derr has cooperated with the police may make further cooperation more likely. Gomez then asked Derr if he got paid by the Criminal Investigation Bureau for helping them with information on criminal activity. The State objected, arguing that Gomez should not be allowed to ask that question unless there was an offer of proof that would support the question. No such offer of proof was made and no explanation given as to why an offer of proof could not be made, so the objection was sustained. This was not error, since no evidence was offered that Derr had ever been paid for informing the police.