Opinion ID: 1829968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Cross-Examination and the Confrontation Clause

Text: Hansen argues that the prosecution offended his rights under the Confrontation Clause(s) with its attempted cross-examination of Anita Krecic. He claims Krecic in practical effect testified against him, without his being able to confront and cross-examine her. What happened is this: in his defense Hansen called Krecic as an adverse witness. She gave her name and address and then to all further questions pleaded her privilege against self-incrimination. When tendered for cross-examination, Krecic engaged in the following colloquy with the prosecuting attorney: Q. Do you recall giving a statement to Sergeant Dean Shephard in Gulfport, Mississippi on April the 11th of this year? A. I'm claiming the Fifth Amendment. Q. Do you recall telling the officer that, quote, you know who did it, it wasn't me? A. I'm claiming the Fifth Amendment. Q. Do you remember that that answer was in response to the question about who had shot the highway patrolman? A. I'm claiming the Fifth Amendment. Other questions were asked Krecic about her purported statement, to all of which she claimed her privilege against self-incrimination. Hansen objected to the substance and mode of this sequence. Our context is important. Substantial evidence shows Krecic was on the scene on the evening of April 10, 1987. Common sense suggests she knows who shot Trooper Ladner. Hansen reminds us today that at trial his defense ... was that the assailant was Krecic or another female, but not himself. (Brief of Appellant, filed June 4, 1990, p. 16). As this was so, the prosecution had a right of retort, Rules 401, 402, Miss.R.Ev., a right to try to discredit Hansen's pointing his finger at Krecic. When Krecic was tendered for cross-examination, the prosecuting attorney was entitled to ask her if Hansen fired the fatal shot and to do so through leading questions. See Rule 611(b), Miss.R.Ev. In point of fact, it appears that prior to trial Krecic had made statements incriminating Hansen. She had told the law enforcement officers that, while she did not shoot Ladner, they know who did it. She had also said that Hansen shouldn't've done that. Hansen tells this Court that the said-to-be offending questions put by the prosecution were a direct quotation from Krecic's statement to the police. (Brief of Appellant, p. 15). This is hardly a case where prosecuting counsel may be charged with birthing a bogus skunk and dragging it through the courtroom to the defendant's detriment. Cf. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 487 (Miss. 1988). Notwithstanding, the prosecution ignored garden variety evidence law in its handling of the matter. Krecic was not on trial, and the prosecuting attorney's sole prerogative ab initio was to ask her, was she there? did she see what happened? and, ultimately, who shot Trooper Ladner? This is but a function of the law's preference for live, in-court, personal knowledge testimony. If Krecic had testified consistent with her prior statements, assuming she had made such statements, the need therefor would have disappeared. See Clanton v. State, 539 So.2d 1024, 1028 (Miss. 1989); Moffett v. State, 456 So.2d 714, 719 (Miss. 1984) (citing cases). If she had given testimony differing from her prior inconsistent statements, in material particulars, then the prosecution would have had the prerogative of impeaching her by confronting her with her prior inconsistent statements. Rule 613(b), Miss.R.Ev.; Harrison v. State, 534 So.2d 175, 179 (Miss. 1988), but, even then, not by tendering them as substantive evidence. See, e.g., Cooper v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 568 So.2d 687, 691 (Miss. 1990); Brown v. State, 556 So.2d 338, 340-41 (Miss. 1990); Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d at 488, 494; but see, Rule 801(d)(1)(A), Miss.R.Ev., and Official Comment thereto, and Staton, Ellis and Williams Mississippi Evidence 202-204 (2d Ed. 1988). A witness' testimony that she does not remember giving a prior statement may be impeached by questioning about the statement. Harrison v. State, 534 So.2d at 180; Jordan v. State, 513 So.2d 574, 581 (Miss. 1987). The problem is that Krecic neither admitted nor denied anything but took the Fifth on all pertinent points, as she was of right entitled. See In re Knapp, 536 So.2d 1330, 1334-35 (Miss. 1988). In Williamson v. State, 512 So.2d 868 (Miss. 1987), in a legally analogous posture, we held taking the Fifth did not constitute a denial by silence and that such a response was not the proper subject for impeachment. Williamson, 512 So.2d at 874. We reaffirm that view today. All of this is prelude to Hansen's Confrontation Clause argument. The general rule is that the prosecution may not use against the defendant the statement of a non-testifying co-defendant or accomplice. The rule's empirical premise is that such statements are of dubious credibility save they be cured in the crucible of cross-examination. See Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 541-42, 106 S.Ct. 2056, 2062-63, 90 L.Ed.2d 514, 526-27 (1986). Its legal undergirdings are the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, see, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), and progeny, and the comparable clause of this state's constitution. Miss.Const.Art. 3, § 26 (1890); Williamson v. State, 512 So.2d at 873; Black v. State, 506 So.2d 264 (Miss. 1987); Mitchell v. State, 495 So.2d 5, 8 (Miss. 1986). Anita Krecic was present in the courtroom, but she is a non-testifying co-defendant nonetheless. Cf. Rule 804(a)(1), Miss. R.Ev.; Ponthieux v. State, 532 So.2d 1239, 1246, 1248 (Miss. 1988). There is no hint Hansen procured Krecic's taking the Fifth. When he called Krecic at trial, Hansen's counsel insisted She may ... admit to the shooting of Officer Ladner... . I would just love to cross-examine her. He tried, and got from Krecic nothing but a repetitious I'm claiming the Fifth Amendment. [8] Counsel then tendered Krecic to the prosecuting attorney, who blundered forth to the brink of reversible error. The fact that a witness for the prosecution claims the Fifth does not per se mean the accused's Confrontation rights have been abridged, for the same reason the mere fact of a witness' memory loss does not per se offend the Clause. United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988); see also, McCormick on Evidence 48-49 (3d Ed. 1984). We confront today more than Krecic merely claiming the Fifth. Preceding each such claim prosecuting counsel purportedly read from her earlier, pre-trial statement implying Hansen's guilt and thus leading us to Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965) as the case of consequence. At Douglas' trial the prosecution called his accomplice, Loyd, and produced a confession purportedly signed by Loyd. The prosecuting attorney then began to read from the confession, pausing after every sentence or two to ask Loyd if he had said that, only to have Loyd claim his privilege against self-incrimination. As with Krecic here, Loyd neither admitted nor denied anything, claiming only the Fifth Amendment. The confession was never offered as evidence. The Supreme Court reasoned Although the ... [prosecuting attorney's] reading of Loyd's alleged statement, and Loyd's refusals to answer, were not technically testimony, the ... [prosecuting attorney's] reading may well have been the equivalent in the jury's mind of testimony that Loyd in fact made the statement; and Loyd's reliance upon the privilege created a situation in which the jury might improperly infer both that the statement had been made and that it was tue. Douglas, 380 U.S. at 419, 85 S.Ct. at 1077, 13 L.Ed.2d at 937-38. Since Loyd claimed the privilege to defense questions as well, and since the prosecuting attorney was not a witness ... [who could] be tested by cross-examination, the Court found an offense to Douglas' Confrontation Clause rights and reversed. [9] See also, Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. at 541-42, 106 S.Ct. at 2062-63, 90 L.Ed.2d at 526-27, where Douglas' core holding is seemingly taken for granted. In Douglas' light we confront our Williamson opinion. The prosecution called Owen Lee Harden as a witness against Williamson. At the time, Harden was under indictment for conspiracy to commit arson, a charge so intertwined with the murder for which Williamson was on trial, that any testimony he might have given would almost certainly have been used against him later. The prosecution called Harden and put to him a series of questions about a confession he was said to have given wherein he detailed the events of the murder and implicated Mrs. Williamson as a party to the murder. Williamson, 512 So.2d at 872-873. Harden offered no testimony, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege. The trial court then allowed the prosecution to impeach Harden by calling the sheriff and another who recited the confession, implicating Williamson. We said, had the State only called Harden then Williamson would have no legitimate argument for reversal. Williamson, 512 So.2d at 872-73 (emphasis added). ( Douglas, which holds precisely the opposite on legally identical facts, is not mentioned.) We, nevertheless, proceeded to reverse, noting that Williamson had been denied her right of confrontation. We said this, not because of Harden refusing to answer questions or the way the prosecution put the questions to him, but because, although Williamson was permitted to cross-examine both [the other two witnesses] concerning the circumstances under which the confession was given, this can hardly be said to constitute a substitute for a meaningful cross-examination of the declarant himself. In short, the admission of this testimony [the testimony given by the two witnesses] denied Williamson her constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses presented against her. Williamson, 512 So.2d at 873. Of course, the witness Williamson could not confront and cross-examine was Harden, not the sheriff and Harden's other confessee. Our opinion is correctly characterized as reversing because the prosecution was allowed to use against Williamson Harden's statement substantially incriminating Williamson, who because Harden took the Fifth could not confront and cross-examine him. This is legally analogous to Douglas' holding of confrontational error in the prosecution's use of Loyd's statement against Douglas. See also, Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. at 542-43, 106 S.Ct. at 2063, 90 L.Ed.2d at 527. On today's appeal, the prosecution dodges Douglas with but two tenuous distinctions: (1) that the defense, not the prosecution, initially called Krecic, and (2) that by calling Krecic as a witness, the defense opened the door to cross-examination by the prosecution concerning Krecic's knowledge of the crime. Neither distinction can withstand a moment's scrutiny. Hansen put Krecic on the witness stand, but he could not get her to say anything. She had given nothing except her name and address when tendered to the prosecution. She was at that moment easily as fresh a witness as Loyd was in Douglas and more manipulable because subject to the prosecution's leading questions. What the prosecuting attorney then did with Krecic is legally identical to what the prosecution in Douglas did with Loyd. Each is condemned on like authority and reasoning. Hansen's futile questioning of Krecic, albeit before the prosecution took its shot, established Krecic's unavailability within Douglas and Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Cf. Rule 804(a)(1), Miss.R.Ev. That Hansen questioned Krecic first, while in Douglas the prosecution questioned Loyd first, is but a distinction without a difference. The prosecution's door opening thesis fails for the simple reason that such doors are opened only co-extensive with what the opening party offers. Our focus is upon the answers elicited, not the questions asked. As Krecic said nothing, Hansen's calling her opened the door to nothing. All of this proceeds from the elementary truth that one party's calling a witness does not empower the other to ask impermissible questions. See Ponthieux v. State, 532 So.2d at 1245-48; Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290, 1294 (Miss. 1984). We may only hold the Circuit Court erred when it allowed the prosecution to question Krecic regarding her statement.
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), recognized in the states authority to employ a limited harmless error analysis and to hold offenses to certain of an accused's constitutional rights do not per se require reversal. The Chapman test is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828, 17 L.Ed.2d at 710. This prerogative extended the states exists where, as here, the accused's Confrontation Clause rights have been violated. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438, 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686 (1986); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), and Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1884, 114 L.Ed.2d 432 (1991), have refined the analysis, viz. an error is constitutionally harmless where it may fairly be said unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record. Yates, 111 S.Ct. at 1893. Repeatedly fixing our focus upon the issue in question, Yates inaugurated a two-step process. First, the reviewing court must ask what evidence the jury actually considered in reaching its verdict. Yates, 500 U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d at 449. In answering this question, a court does not conduct a subjective enquiry into the jurors' minds. Yates, 500 U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d at 449. The Court then articulated the objective contours of the quest. The answer must come ... from analysis of the instructions given to the jurors and from application of that customary presumption that jurors follow instructions and, specifically, that they consider relevant evidence on a point in issue when they are told that they may do so. Yates, 500 U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d at 449. The question, in the end, is whether the force of the evidence presumably considered by the jury in accordance with the instructions is so overwhelming as to leave it beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict resting on that evidence would have been the same in the absence of the ... [rights violation], here, in the absence of the prosecutor's offense to the Confrontation Clause. Yates, 500 U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d at 449. The issue, of course, is whether Hansen killed Trooper Ladner, whether Hansen was the trigger man. The Circuit Court submitted this simple factual issue under conventional instructions that the jury should find Hansen guilty of capital murder if it find beyond a reasonable doubt that, under statutorily specified conditions, Hansen did ... kill and murder ... David Bruce Ladner... . The Court further instructed the jury it could consider various forms of evidence, viz. The testimony and statements of the witnesses and the exhibits offered and received ... [and] such reasonable inferences as seem justified in the light of your own experience. The evidence that Hansen killed Trooper Ladner is overwhelming. To begin with, all of the evidence shows two persons, a young man and a young woman, with Ladner along I-10 on the evening of April 10, 1987. Reasoning backwards, we know Hansen was the man because (a) Daisy Morgan identified Hansen as the man who, a short while later, arrived with a female companion in a Highway Patrol car, and stole Morgan's Ford Ranger; (b) Pat Ladner identified Hansen as the man who arrived at his house later that evening with a female companion; (c) Jody Wade and Charlie Williams identified Hansen whom they took, with Krecic, first to the Ladner's and thereafter toward Waveland; (d) State Troopers Freddie Keel and Darryl Deschamp identified Hansen as the man they took into custody while en route to Waveland with Wade and Williams; and (e) Critically, Troopers Keel and Deschamp found on Hansen  some six hours after Ladner had been shot  (1) the MHSP standard issue .357 Magnum which had been checked out to Ladner and (2) a.38 caliber handgun  the bullet removed from Ladner's neck had been fired from a .38 caliber gun. If this be not enough, we return to April 10's early evening hours and find that (f) Kathy Romany, who had followed the blue town car westward along I-10 all the way from Florida, identified Hansen as the driver; (g) William Forrest Runnels and Charles E. Childress, both motorists passing by, said they saw a blue town car, a state trooper's car, and a man and a woman and, of importance, that they saw the man stuffing a large pistol into his pants; (h) Steve Diaz identified Hansen as the man he saw standing over the wounded and bleeding state trooper and as the man who drove away in the trooper's car; and (i) Paul Tibbetts and Donald Ray Meche each made an in-court identification of Hansen as the man who shot and killed Trooper Ladner. If the cake need icing, (j) Clydell Morgan testified that he found Hansen's left thumbprint on the consent to search form, Hansen's left little fingerprint on the map, and a right palmprint on another incriminating document. Add to this (k) the absence of the slightest shred of evidence that Krecic pulled the trigger, and we have in the record, acceptable of consideration by reference to the Court's instructions to the jury, evidence that overwhelms. Yates' further focus demands we weigh the probative force of the impermissible and, having done so, that we balance this against the permissible evidence on the issue. Translated, we evaluate the persuasive force of the prosecution's impermissible efforts at examining Krecic regarding her prior statement. When we do this we find but a page and a half out of a trial transcript of two thousand pages. The prosecuting attorney asked Krecic but eight questions about her statement. Only the two quoted above suggested Hansen may have been the trigger man and these but obliquely. In candor, nothing in this sequence supported Hansen's effort to throw the blame on Krecic or another female, but not himself, yet it is a far cry from the prosecution's damning dramatics in Douglas and in Williamson. We regard the probative value of today's impermissible as slight, so slight that, when we weigh it against the permissible evidence before the jury, we are left satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, on the issue whether Hansen shot and killed Trooper Ladner, the verdict reasonably may only have been that he did, even had the prosecution not used Krecic's statement to the offense of Hansen's Confrontation Clause(s) rights. We hold that the present error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); cf. Rule 103(a), Miss.R.Ev. We regard as nil the chances that, had the prosecution not done what it did in its purported cross-examination of Krecic, the jury would have returned any other verdict on the issue in question.