Opinion ID: 2263311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The trial judge allegedly abused his discretion by denying Miller's motion in limine which sought to redact portions of Miller's videotaped police interview.

Text: During trial, the prosecutor sought to introduce Miller's videotaped police interview. Defense counsel, however, objected, expressing concern over some of the police officer's statements while questioning Miller. Defense counsel wanted to redact a portion of the video where the police officer suggested that Miller might have not remembered raping his daughter because he might have been under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. [46] The prosecutor summarized the police officer's statement: In questioning the defendant, the detective says sheshe's saying maybe he might have forgotten about this, maybe he might have been intoxicated and her line of question [sic] is maybe you came home, you were drunk, maybe you were high and you gotmaybe you were drunk, maybe you smoked some pot and you got in bed and you didn't realize what you were doing. The trial judge, after viewing the video, denied Miller's motion in limine: [A]fter the close of trial yesterday, I took the video, looked at it and I do not believe that the references to alcohol or potential drug use having perhaps made him[Miller] forget the events needed to be redacted because, first of all, he[Miller] denied that it had any effect and, if anything, it's clear that it's the suggestion of the officer and not his[Miller's] suggestion that for some reason justified his[Miller's] acts, so I don't see it to be prejudicial. We understand the trial judge's ruling to mean that the police officer's suggestions of alcohol or drug use to the point of memory loss were not prejudicial because they did not come from Miller and Miller flatly denied them. Put simply, no prejudice could have resulted from mere suggestions by the police officer. Miller claims that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying the motion in limine. We decline to address whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Miller's motion. Instead, for the sake of argument, we will assume that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying Miller's motion in limine. The mere fact the trial judge abused his discretion, however, does not require reversal. We must determine whether the mistakes constituted significant prejudice so as to have denied Miller a fair trial. [47] Miller fails to articulate any significant prejudice. The State presented substantial evidence that Miller raped and sexually abused his own daughter over a long period of time. Miller's natural daughter testified against him and his natural son corroborated her story. Miller provided evidence to suggest that both of his children were biased and had motives to lie. To resolve the case the jury simply needed to decide who was more credible, Miller's two children or Miller himself. The jury obviously accepted Alicia's story and Anthony's corroboration. Miller has failed to articulate how the police officer's totally uncorroborated statements, that he flatly denied, would affect the jury's determination of his credibility in light of the balance of the evidence. [48] Therefore, even if the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to redact references to criminal use of marijuana and alcohol abuse, Miller has failed to articulate why the jury's verdict would turn on that issue and prejudice him to the degree that we can conclude that he was denied a fair trial. Despite the fact that admitting the police officer's suggestive questions did not affect the outcome of Miller's trial, we reluctantly find it necessary to comment about the prosecutor's trial tactics. The trial judge should never have been faced with the question of whether a portion of the videotape should have been redacted. Instead, the prosecutor should have stipulated to redacting the portion of the video where the police officer made reference to a criminal act, using marijuana, because that portion of the video had little, if any, probative value to the State's case. [49] This case involved a credibility determination; either the jury would believe Alicia and Anthony or Miller. Certainly the police officer's unsupported suggestions had no bearing on the credibility of either party. The only thing the prosecutor could have hoped for by not stipulating to redact this portion of the video is that the jury would consider the police officer's suggestion as true and view Miller in a bad light. The prosecutor leaves us only one conclusionhe wanted the jury to consider the police officer's suggestion of marijuana use for an improper purpose. Delaware attorneys pride themselves on treating their opponents fairly and with the utmost respect and we expect that all Delaware attorneys follow the Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers. [50] A few excerpts from the Principles are pertinent here: A lawyer should develop and maintain the qualities of integrity, compassion, learning, civility, diligence and public service that mark the most admired members of our profession.... Whenever possible, stipulating and agreements should be made between counsel to reduce both the cost and the use of judicial time.... Good faith efforts should be made to resolve by agreement objections to matters contained in the pleadings, discovery requests, and objections. Therefore, even putting aside a prosecutor's heightened duties, [51] the prosecutor, as a Delaware attorney, should have stipulated to the redaction of the statements about marijuana because the statements offered little, if anything, to the State's case and had the clear potential to create unfair prejudice.