Opinion ID: 2543466
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Statements Concerning Other Witnesses' Testimony

Text: ¶ 32 Turning next to Mineer's alleged statements about other witnesses' testimony, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Cramer failed to meet his burden under McGrath. As the trial court correctly recognized, under McGrath, a defendant must show that a violation of the exclusion order prejudiced [him] to the extent that a new trial should be granted. McGrath, 749 P.2d at 634 (declining to adopt defendant's argument that prejudice is inherent in [a] violation of an order of exclusion). ¶ 33 The record supports the trial court's conclusion that Cramer did not show sufficient prejudice to justify a new trial. As the trial court noted, Jennifer Durham testified that she heard only small portions of Mineer's statements to M.L., and could not recall specifically what was said about the testimony in court. Even assuming that Mineer told M.L. about other witnesses' testimony, Cramer does not claim that any other witness testified, for example, that Cramer asked M.L. whether the touching felt good. Thus, Cramer made no showing that M.L. changed his testimony as a result of Mineer's statements about other witnesses' testimony. Moreover, in contrast to his argument concerning Mineer's statements about Cramer's abuse of her sons, Cramer does not even argue that the communication of other witnesses' testimony engendered fear in M.L. and, as a result, caused him to change his testimony. Because Cramer did not provide the trial court with evidence that M.L. changed his testimony because of the conversations concerning other witnesses' testimony, id., the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Cramer had not demonstrated that these communications prejudiced [him] to the extent that a mistrial should be granted, id., even assuming these communications violated the exclusion order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that Mineer's alleged communications to M.L. about other witnesses' testimony did not warrant a new trial under rule 615. [4]