Opinion ID: 2639482
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sustaining and objection to a question to najee muslim

Text: Muslim's October 27, 1989, statement to the police implicated defendant as the actual killer. Defense counsel sought to prove that Muslim had been threatened with prosecution before making that statement, and thus had a motive to exaggerate defendant's role in the Domino's Pizza killing, both because that would implicitly minimize Muslim's role and because cooperating with the police might gain Muslim the benefit of a favorable plea agreement. Muslim acknowledged that before he talked to the police, they told him that they knew of his involvement with the robbery and said, either you go down with them [the other robbers] and get charged with murder or you can come down and talk with us. Defense counsel then asked Muslim whether the police had accused him of being the shooter. The prosecutor objected that the question had been asked and answered, and the trial court sustained the objection. In view of defendant's lengthy cross-examination of Muslim, it is understandable that the prosecutor and judge may have thought Muslim had already been asked about accusations that he was the shooter. But a review of the record shows the question had not been asked. The accusation of murder is not the same as an accusation of being the shooter; the latter is more serious, because in a felony-murder setting the actual killer is more likely to receive a death sentence. Thus the trial court erred in sustaining the objection on the ground that the question had been asked and answered. Defendant does not claim that this error standing alone is prejudicial; we consider cumulative prejudice in part VI.L., post.