Opinion ID: 2382224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: testimony of specific witnesses at guilt phase

Text: Appellant claims that the trial court erred in permitting Linda Rhinehart to testify that sometime between mid-August of 1981 and mid-September of 1981 she overheard appellant and some other men discussing the killing. Specifically, Rhinehart testified as follows: [I heard him say] Oh, we drove around and partied for awhile, she [the victim] had to pee, so we pulled over to let her go in the woods. He then said, I followed her into the woods `cause I was going to get some of that, and he came back and told his buddies, let's share this. The first male voice said, No, come on, she's not sharing with her boyfriend right now. [appellant] sort of chuckled. And that's when I got my pizza to turn around and saw that it was [appellant]talking, and he made the statement, She won't be a tease anymore. It's amazing what a tire iron can do to hush someone making that much noise. The witness testified at trial that although she had never personally met appellant, several people had identified him to her prior to overhearing the conversation. [20] Appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing Rhinehart's testimony because it was hearsay and it violated appellant's confrontation rights. Appellant argues in his appellate brief that: If the Commonwealth wanted such evidence to be admitted, it was their burden to lay a proper foundation which included having witnesses testify that they knew Defendant and told Ms. Rhinehart the speaker was defendant. Therefore, appellant argues that he was prejudiced since he was not able to cross-examine the witnesses about whether they actually told Rhinehart that the speaker was appellant. It is difficult to comprehend appellant's logic that he was prejudiced by this alleged failure on the part of the Commonwealth and the trial court. Appellant's counsel thoroughly and adequately cross-examined Rhinehart about her ability to identify appellant. Moreover, she testified at trial that Mary Trisch Knight identified appellant to her. [21] Knight was called as a witness at trial during both the Commonwealth's and appellant's cases. If appellant felt the need to examine Knight about whether she did in fact identify appellant to Rhinehart, that information was directly ascertainable and could have been made available to the jury. Therefore, appellant was not prejudiced by the admission of this evidence. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting Laura Craig from testifying. Appellant sought to use Craig's testimony to impeach a witness for the Commonwealth, Edward Moore. Moore, a fellow prisoner, testified that appellant, prior to trial, offered him ten thousand dollars to fk up Larry Tucker, the Commonwealth's principal witness, which Moore refused. Moore was initially visited by police officers regarding the offer, but he refused to cooperate. After appellant learned that Moore had been approached by the police, he confronted Moore. [22] Later that night, Moore requested that he be transferred to a different part of the prison for medical reasons. At trial, appellant's counsel made an offer of proof that Craig, a nurse at the prison, would testify that when Moore requested the transfer, he did not mention any threats or problems with appellant, but he did indicate that the police were pressuring him to testify and he was unclear regarding essentially what they wanted him to testify about. The trial court ruled that Craig's proposed testimony would not impeach Moore's testimony because appellant's counsel acknowledged that Moore was not asked on direct examination if he was fearful of John Small. Moreover, Moore testified on direct that he did feel pressure from the police, when they first questioned him since he didn't want to get involved. Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that there was no statement by Moore that Craig's testimony would impeach. Hence, we hold that appellant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the testimony.