Opinion ID: 1095005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to grant williams' motion for a mistrial due to hand signal communication between the prosecutor and a witness being examined by defense counsel?

Text: During the cross-examination by the defense counsel of a police officer, the following events occurred: Q. Do you know why that the two charges were not made at one time? Do you have any idea? A. Yes, sir, I do. BY MR. GILMER: Mr. Peters, I don't think it's proper for y'all to  BY MR. PETERS: If it please the Court, we told him not to give this information, and I'm not telling him that he can give that information  BY MR. GILMER: This is completely improper. BY MR. PETERS:  because Defense Attorney has opened that up. BY THE COURT: Just a moment. Yes, let's do not coach the witness, please. BY MR. PETERS: I just had told him not to answer something unless Defense Attorney opened the door. He just opened the door, and I just  BY MR. GILMER: Your Honor, we move the Court for a mistrial. This is highly improper. Mr. Peters has been doing this  BY THE COURT: Just a moment. Just a moment. Your motion will be overruled. Now do you want the witness to answer the question? If you wish, rephrase your question. BY MR. GILMER: We ask that the jury be retired for a moment, Your Honor. BY THE COURT: Step into the jury room, please. [JURY EXCUSED. THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THEIR ABSENCE:]       BY MR. GILMER: Now at this point we are examining a critical, material witness; and the District Attorney, through hand motions or mimicking seeks to control or influence in some manner this witnesses' testimony. We believe this, in combination with all else that has occurred during the course of trial, and we believe it's all done in a zealous attempt, maybe admirable in some cases, but not in this one, to prosecute an alleged crime. We believe it all operates to materially diminish the defendant's right to both substantive and procedural due process. BY THE COURT: [D]o you wish to make a response? BY MR. PETERS: Yes, sir, I would like to make a response... . [W]ith regard to the motion that I made with my hands, what I made was a motion for him to go ahead and now give the information that the Court had previously ruled as inadmissible, that being what he determined, why he determined the probable cause for the arrest. The Court had previously stated that he could not say what Brenda Chance had told him. The Defense Attorney then said, You wanted him back in jail, why didn't you arrest him again? And I told him he could now go ahead and say that. That was my sole purpose for my telling him that he could go ahead with that testimony. BY THE COURT: All right... . The motion for mistrial will be overruled. You may ask the Jury to return to the jurybox. Williams, having properly preserved this point for appeal, now requests a reversal and argues that the coaching of the witness by the district attorney denied him a fair trial. We agree. An attorney should never signal to a witness, regardless of how innocent the action may be, because this leaves with the jury the impression of covertness and partiality between the witness and the signalling party. If, during examination and due to some unusual circumstances, an attorney wishes a witness to be instructed, he should address his request to the trial judge. Therefore, we find that these actions by the prosecutor also denied Williams a fair trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. ANDERSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. PITTMAN, J., not participating.