Opinion ID: 1298321
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: admission of opinion of guilt

Text: During the cross-examination of the investigating detective, defense counsel inquired as to why he thought the defendant had committed the murder and the basis of his opinion. The defense counsel first read from a treatise on the Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation. Q. [By Mr. Koopman]: The best hypotheses must be objectively tested and modified or rejected when contrary evidence is uncovered. The investigator must not permit his observations and interpretations to be biased in favor of the hypotheses. Would you like to read? A. [By Mark Jones]: No, sir. Q. Okay. Do your understand what Mr. O'Hara is saying in that statement? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Do your agree with that statement? A. Yes, I do. Q. And in fact, would it be fair to say that that type of criminal investigation technique warning warns you not to allow a bias toward a suspect interfere with your investigation? Haven't you learned that, also, in other courses, in other investigative courses throughout your career? A. Yes, sir. Q. But on September the 16th, just shortly after the body of little Jeneane Hunt was found, you put it in your mind that this man was the killer of that little girl; correct? A. Yes, sir, I knew he was. Q. You knew he was? A. Yes, sir. Q. You knew he was from what physical evidence that you had at that point in time, Officer? A. From the inconsistent statements at that time. Q. From the inconsistent statements wherein he said if I can recall, I drove toward Apache Junction, when in fact he told Officer Riggs he drove toward Phoenix, correct? A. That's only one. Q. That's one. Another one is, he told Riggs he would talk to neighbors in the morning, but you found out he didn't talk to neighbors until the afternoon; correct? A. He did not talk to neighbors. He talked to a neighbor. Q. Talked to a neighbor. And for those two inconsistencies, you considered this man a murderer of his stepchild, and therefore, set out to prove him guilty; is that correct? A. No, sir. There's much more to it than that. Q. Well, you didn't have much more on September the 16th. At that point in time, the autopsy hadn't been done? A. I knew that he had purchased an extra barrel for his weapon. Q. Okay. A. I knew that he was telling us that he had sold a gun to buy milk and bread, and in fact, on the 17th, we found out that he used that gun to trade for an extra barrel for that weapon. Q. And $20, correct? A. Yes, sir, he did receive $20. On redirect examination, the detective was asked if he had any other evidence on which he based his opinion. Defense counsel objected, but the objection was overruled. The trial court ruled that counsel had opened the door regarding the reasons the detective suspected the defendant, and the information relied on in forming that opinion. Defendant now contends that it was improper and prejudicial for the detective to testify as to his opinion or suspicion of guilt of the defendant, or in the alternative the testimony was hearsay. We do not agree. On rebuttal the state may offer any competent evidence that directly replies to or contradicts any material evidence introduced by the accused. Moreover, as we have noted: Generally, where the defendant, by putting on testimony opens the door to proper rebuttal, he cannot complain if rebuttal testimony, offered by the State, also tends to prove or reinforce the State's case in chief   . State v. Kountz, 108 Ariz. 459, 463, 501 P.2d 931, 935 (1972), (quoting State v. Dowthard, 3 Ariz. App. 237, 239, 413 P.2d 296, 298 (1966)). We find no error.