Opinion ID: 2443925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Boyd's Section 3507 Statement

Text: At Stevens' trial, co-defendant Boyd admitted that on January 21, 2009, he pled guilty to three charges involving the China King robbery: Robbery in the First Degree; Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony; and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. When Boyd testified at Stevens' May 2009 jury trial, he was serving a six year prison sentence for these convictions. Boyd testified as a prosecution witness on the second day of Stevens' jury trial. Boyd's direct trial testimony was interrupted by the State in order to summon Detective Roswell as a witness to lay the foundation for admission under section 3507 of Boyd's prior out-of-court statement to Detective Roswell. [22] Detective Roswell identified a DVD copy of his August 22, 2008 interview of Boyd. After defense counsel for Stevens advised that he had no cross-examination questions for Detective Roswell, the trial judge granted the State's request to play the DVD of Boyd's 2008 out-of-court statement. The trial judge asked the prosecutor about the approximate length of the tape. The prosecutor replied that the whole statement lasted a little over an hour, but it's been somewhat edited. The edited or redacted version to be played for Stevens' jury was 45 to 50 minutes. The State began playing the Boyd DVD statement at 10:39 a.m. Approximately thirty-five minutes later, the DVD was stopped at 11:14 a.m.the point where a portion of Boyd's interrogation which was played for the jury contained Detective Roswell's opinion that Stevens and Boyd engaged in some other robberies: Detective: I think you guys have done some other ones. I think he's brought you along for some other ones. Some other robberies in particular. I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that. What else he's done in particularJonathan. Ok? I'm actually pretty sure you guys have done some more stuff. Boyd: Oh nah, to be honest with you, I haven't. Detective: What else has he done? Boyd: Only thing I know about is when he had the truck. When this portion of the interrogation was played for the jury, Stevens' defense counsel objected on the basis that the dialogue was irrelevant. The trial judge conducted a sidebar conference to consider the defense objection. Both the trial judge and the prosecutor agreed that Detective Roswell's opinion was irrelevant. Nevertheless, the prosecutor argued that because Boyd denied being involved in any other robberies, the statement by Detective Roswell was not prejudicial. The trial judge rejected that argument and suggested that a curative instruction was appropriate. In response to that suggested ruling by the trial judge, the prosecutor represented that the only information he wanted from the rest of the interrogation by Detective Roswell was that Stevens had a knife in the truck and that Boyd said, I was not going to do it, but just thought I might as well. The prosecutor stated, [e]verything after that is an attempt to see if there is anything else that they have done, and that's all out. The prosecutor also told the court that he redacted Boyd's assertion that he was aware that Stevens was involved in an incident where he had a gun and weed in his truck. Based on the prosecutor's representations, Stevens' defense counsel indicated that [s]ince [the prosecutor] is saying that that's been redacted, that's fine. Stevens' trial attorney withdrew his objection and indicated that a curative jury instruction by the trial judge would not be necessary. At the end of the sidebar conference, the trial judge asked defense counsel, Are you okay with what's left? and Stevens' attorney replied, Yes. At 11:18 a.m., the remainder of Boyd's redacted statement was played for Stevens' jury. When the DVD was completed, Boyd's direct examination at trial continued, followed by cross-examination by Stevens' attorney. On appeal, Stevens argues that the Superior Court committed plain error when it failed to issue a curative instruction or declare a mistrial, because remaining portions of the DVD statement of Boyd heard by the jury contained improper statements by the interviewing police officer. Stevens contends that unredacted parts of Boyd's DVD statement contain Detective Roswell's opinion that Stevens was involved in other robberies; opinion as to the credibility of the State's key witnesses; characterization of the evidence; and misstatement of the evidence. The record reflects at Stevens' jury trial there was no defense request for curative instructions, for the trial judge to declare a mistrial, or for further redactions in Boyd's recorded statements in the DVD that was played for the jury. Since the issues raised by Stevens on appeal were not presented to the trial judge, these objections may be reviewed only for plain error. [23] Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process. [24] In demonstrating that an unobjected to error is prejudicial, the burden of persuasion is on the defendant. [25] To this Court, Stevens argues that Detective Roswell's opinions and comments were not only irrelevant but were highly prejudicial. Stevens asserts that the prosecutor's argument that there was no prejudice because Boyd denied involvement in other crimes is without merit. Stevens makes that assertion because Boyd never denied that Stevens was involved in any other robberies and the jury was permitted to hear that Stevens was involved in a prior incident involving a truck. Thus, Stevens contends, the jury could conclude that he committed a robbery involving a truck and the only thing the prosecutor could have hoped for by failing to redact this portion of the video is that the jury would consider the police officer's suggestion as true and view [Stevens] in a bad light. [26] According to Stevens, permitting the jury to hear the improper remarks and questions by Detective Roswell violated the limitations on the admission of prior our-of-court statements of a trial witness under title 11, section 3507 as interpreted by this Court in Hassan-El v. State , [27] and other decisions. [28] Stevens argues that it is apparent from the face of the record that the trial judge's failure either to issue a curative instruction or declare a mistrial based on the admission of Detective Roswell's opinion statements, was plain error. The plain error standard of appellate review is predicated upon a defense counsel's failure to object to the admission of improper evidence through oversight. [29] In Stevens' case, the record reflects that his trial attorney initially objected to the admission of Detective Roswell's personal opinion embedded in the 3507 statement. After the sidebar conference, however, counsel withdrew that objection, never moved for a mistrial and specifically declined the trial judge's offer to give a curative instruction. Consequently, there was no oversight by Stevens' defense attorney. Stevens also asserts that the remaining portion of the interrogation played for the jury included the following inadmissible statement by Detective Roswell, which was admitted without objection: You haven't been with him on anything else? Here's the thing, now's the time to let me know about it because the way things work with cases and what not, we can get everything over and done with today. What you don't need to have happen is take care of this today then the next thing you know, couple weeks from now, something else pops up. Stevens opening brief then makes the following argument: The record in our case reveals that the trial court was aware of the inadmissibility of at least one set of comments by the officerthose expressing his opinion that Stevens was engaged in other robberies. The record also reveals that, despite defense counsel's initial objection and the prosecutor's representation, further inadmissible comments about other robberies were presented to the jury. Yet, the trial judge did nothing. Stevens' appellate assertions of plain error disregard his trial attorney's initial decision not to move for a mistrial and not to accept the trial judge's offer of a curative instruction, and counsel's subsequent failure to object to the later statements by Detective Roswell. Those actions preclude plain error review. We hold that Stevens' trial attorney's initial decision not to move for a mistrial or to accept the trial judge's offer of a curative jury instruction, and counsel's failure to object to Detective Roswell's subsequent statements, all preclude any review for plain error in this direct appeal. Our prior precedents indicate that Detective Roswell's reference to other robberies, although not subject to review for plain error, was nevertheless inadmissible as part of Boyd's section 3507 statement. The record does not reflect why Stevens' trial counsel did not accept the trial judge's offer of a curative instruction and/or move for a mistrial, especially since Stevens was on trial for allegedly committing a robbery. The propriety of that trial strategy can be analyzed when the record is more developed if Stevens elects to file a Rule 61 [30] motion for post-conviction relief. In Stevens' case, the State should have redacted the objectionable comments sua sponte. [31] When he discovered that that had not been done, the defense attorney should have filed a motion in limine to exclude them. As we observed in Miller, the trial judge should not have been confronted with the inadmissible prejudicial comments by a third party, especially as in this case, after the videotape had already been played before the jury. [32] In Miller, we concluded that the prosecutor's failure to redact the police officer's inadmissible reference to prior criminal acts created the risk that the defendant's conviction would be overturned and, since its inadmissibility was so clear, resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial, prosecutorial and defense resources. [33] Nevertheless, the same impropriety was repeated in Stevens' case. With the guidance provided by this opinion, it should not happen again.