Opinion ID: 1237936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 43

Heading: Other Allegedly Improper Conduct

Text: (89) Defendant invites our attention to two final incidents that he maintains constitute misconduct. In one incident, the defense objected on relevance grounds to a question the prosecutor posed to a witness. The prosecutor admitted he could not identify any theory of relevancy, remarking that he was simply curious. The trial court sustained the objection and the prosecutor abandoned the topic. Asking questions about irrelevant matters is improper. Defendant concedes, however, that the incident resulted in no significant prejudice. On a Friday during the trial, the defense asked for a list of the witnesses the prosecution intended to call the next week. One of the prosecutors said they had not yet determined which witnesses to use and offered to provide the information on the following Monday. The trial court indicated that the testimony would begin on Tuesday with the completion of one witness's testimony and instructed the prosecutors to name the witness who would follow. The prosecutors then named three witnesses. We reject the contention that this incident shows misconduct. Defendant claims the prosecutors' ability to name three witnesses shows that the prosecutor lied when he said he could not provide a list of the witnesses to be called. We see no inconsistency. The prosecutors apparently knew the witnesses they intended to call first, but not the witnesses for the full week. In any event, no prejudice resulted.