Opinion ID: 294546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: questions as to location of persons referred to by defendant

Text: 24 Appellant contends it was error to overrule the objection made when the prosecutor asked him whether two people he had named in his testimony were present in the courtroom, and if not, where they were. 25 The jury may not be invited to infer that the testimony of an absent witness would have been adverse to a party unless it has first been determined that the witness is peculiarly within the power of that party to produce and that the witness's testimony is likely to elucidate the transaction in issue. See Wynn v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 397 F.2d 621 (1967) and cases there cited. 26 However, when a witness is available to both parties, the failure to produce is open to an inference against both parties, the particular strength of the inference against either depending on the circumstances. 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 288. This formulation has been cited with approval by eminent judges. 6 The question put by the prosecutor to defendant was, therefore, not inherently objectionable. 27 But such a question may not be put in an unfair way, or pushed to the point of over-reaching. For example, the prosecutor must avoid any implication that no such person exists, at least where he has been given reasonable advance notice of that person's identity. And repeated questioning as to persons who figure so little that their absence is not significant may cumulate to the point of distortion. The trial judge has discretion to prohibit or limit such questions to avoid abuse. In the case at bar we do not think the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of fair probing into the circumstances surrounding the absence of witnesses to a prejudicial degree. His questions and the defendant's answers reveal only a very brief foray into this area. As to one person, the defendant answered that he was not present because he was in the service; this explanation probably inured to the defendant's benefit. We are troubled because neither of the persons about whom questions were asked played any large part in the case, but we see no reasonable possibility that these questions contributed to the conviction. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). 28 Affirmed.