Opinion ID: 1906701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: natasha stringfellow

Text: The prosecution began its questioning of Natasha Stringfellow asking why she was in court that day. Stringfellow replied that she was under subpoena, and that she had not complied with the subpoena because she was scared: Q: Why didn't you turn up for court? A: I was scared. Q: Do you want to be here today? A: Sure don't. No. Q: Why was it you eventually came in voluntarily? A: Because the people said they was going to take my kids, and I came down here. Q: I'm sorry. A: They said they was going to take my kids. Counsel for Terrell objected, stating that the witness' state of mind had not yet been put into issue. Mercer's counsel joined in the objection. The trial judge stated that she was not going to rule on the objection until after the witness had testified, to see if demeanor had become an issue. [7] Stringfellow testified that she was a friend of both Mercer and Terrell. On June 1, 1995, she was on her way to the house of Jason Brooks after she learned that he had been killed. At that time, she heard Mercer and Yappy arguing. Terrell's car was on the scene. Stringfellow then heard shots. The record indicates that Stringfellow had trouble recalling her prior deposition [8] testimony: Q: Okay, Now, Ms. Stringfellow, what do you remember? What else do you remember? A: I don't remember nothing that paper said he said. I don't remember nothing. Q: Do you remember testifying? A: Yeah. Q: Under oath? A: Yeah, I remember talking to the lady.       Q: You remember what Wayne-Wayne said  A: I don't remember. I don't remember. Q: Let me ask you. Well, how could he get shot and nothing happened to you? A: I don't remember. Q: You got away, and you get to come home and tell everything that happened, and nothing happened to  I mean, he got shot, and you're okay, and you're walking around like nothing  like there ain't nothing wrong. Do you remember testifying to that? A: I don't remember. At the end of Stringfellow's testimony, both defense counsel renewed their objection, fearing the opening portion of the examination was prejudicial to their clients. The court gave a limiting instruction: All right, Ladies and gentlemen, I want to again instruct you that you recall Ms. Stringfellow began her testimony by saying that she had been  had not wanted to be here and that she was scared. I want to emphasize to you, so that you not misuse that type of evidence from this witness, there is absolutely no evidence in this case that either defendant on trial has had anything to do with any conduct that would have any basis for a comment like that from a witness of being scared. There are dozens of reasons why any witness may be concerned that have nothing to do with a particular defendant on trial, and you are not to speculate about what the cause may be, because that's not in evidence. But, I affirmatively instruct you that there is absolutely no evidence that either of these defendants is the cause. And, again, the only reason that kind of testimony is permitted is to help you understand the state of mind of witness at the time of testifying. So, use it for that purpose only, and do not use it against either defendant. Other than on the issue of timing, we find no error in the trial judge's action. First, the witness demonstrated a lack of memory of her prior testimony. Questions about her state of mind, therefore, become relevant to explain the inability to remember. [9] This evidence was meant to explain specific behavior of the witness while testifying; it did not go only to her general credibility, as in the case of Washington. Second, the trial judge instructed the jury on the proper use of this evidence. After an objection by the defense counsel, the judge gave a limiting instruction. This instruction informed the jury that the only reason for the evidence was to place the testimony of the witness in the proper light, and allow them to assess her state of mind and demeanor. Third, the challenged portion of Stringfellow's testimony does not appear to implicate either Mercer or Terrell. Stringfellow commented that they was going to take my kids in response to a question as to why she did testify, not to explain her reluctance to testify. The statement appears to show that Stringfellow perceived there to be a threat by some government agent that if she did not testify, the government would take her children into custody. [10] While not completely clear, a reasonable reading of this testimony is that she only complied with the subpoena and appeared in court to avoid having the government follow through on this threat. Except as noted previously in footnote 7, the conduct of the trial judge was proper as to this witness. The evidence did tend to explain Stringfellow's demeanor, and the judge did give a proper limiting instruction.