Opinion ID: 1107874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was white denied a fair and impartial trial due to irrelevant, inflammatory and prejudicial evidence from interjection by the state of extraneous and prejudicial matters?

Text: White argues the State erroneously placed before the jury testimony that he may have been stealing from his employers in order to infer a motive for the shooting and to rebut this defense of insanity. He complains specifically of the following which occurred at trial during the cross-examination of Dr. Guild: Q. Do you find one of the reasons that you decided this close question that he just didn't have a motive for killing her? A. That's one factor that certainly goes in. That's one of the things you look at. If somebody's got a clear motive for something then you're much more suspicious that it's just a deliberate, pre-meditated act for obvious reasons. Q. And one way to do that would be to look at the history of whether or not he's taking money, a great deal of money from the company for expenses. Is that right? MR. STANFIELD: Your Honor, if the Court please, we object. THE COURT: Members of the jury, step into the jury room for a minute. MR. PETERS: We're going to prove this. We have the person subpoenaed. (THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTROOM AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY:) MR. PETERS: We intend to prove this, Your Honor, and we have advised the Defense Attorneys of that. MR. STANFIELD: No, Your Honor, he has not advised us and if he's going to prove it, he ought to have put it on in his case in chief. He's trying to sit back and sandbag us by coming in and re-opening his case under the guise of rebuttal to put on something that he didn't put on in his case in chief and to try to set the predicate by asking Dr. Guild these questions that Dr. Guild knows nothing about so he can deny them to give him that right. We would object to any testimony elicited along this line. THE COURT: Let me hear the question first. Ask the question. MR. PETERS: Q: Would the fact that he's been taking a great deal of money from the company in the form of expenses, almost equal to his salary, influence you at all? A: It would influence me. Anything you tell me would influence me. In this case I know there's  well, let me tell you what I know. He was under an unusual working relationship. He never took a vacation. He didn't leave work. He never took a vacation. They had discussed it several times back and forth and from what I can see of the situation the understanding was that he would be allowed to do some part-time jobs on his own since he didn't take a vacation. He could just take that time off and do some moonlighting work. That was one of the areas that led to controversy between them. Now, he was angry because they disputed some of the reimbursement that he had to the men. He felt that he had paid out of pocket expenses to some of the men because they were just common workmen and they want their money right then and there so they can go and do whatever they want to do with their money and he would pay them and felt that the Schwartzes would not reimburse him for that. That's one of the problems there. So there were some areas there but still, if you read what Mr. Schwartz says, if you listen to what they all say, there was never an open disagreement between any of them that I can find. MR. PETERS: That's exactly what I'm getting to, Your Honor. There was a legitimate dispute over expenses that he was having with them. There's no way we can prove it. The lady is dead, but a reasonable inference would be that he got mad with her for doing that. And I have told the defense attorney, even though he denies it, I have told him do you realize he was getting expenses equal to his salary, and the doctor himself knows it. I think I discussed it with Dr. Guild. THE COURT: The objection will be overruled. [Emphasis added] White argues the trial court erroneously allowed this information that he was allegedly taking exorbitant amounts of expense money to go before the jury because it was never proved by the State he took any money. Instead, following the overruling of the defendant's objection, the jury only heard the district attorney ask Dr. Guild if his opinion that White was M'Naghten insane would change if he knew that White was taking money and that Mrs. Schwartz was the bookkeeper. While this questioning was not appropriate without supporting proof by the State, any error to White was cured by the following limiting instruction: INSTRUCTION 1 It is your duty to determine the facts and to determine them from the evidence produced in open Court. You are to apply the law to the facts and in this way decide the case. You should not be influenced by bias, sympathy or prejudice. Your verdict should be based on the evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork, or conjecture... . Arguments, statements and remarks of counsel are intended to help you understand the evidence and apply the law, but are not evidence. If any argument, statement or remark has no basis in the evidence, then you should disregard that argument, statement or remark. [Emphasis added] Therefore, it being a presumption that jurors follow instructions presented to them, any error was harmless.