Opinion ID: 1832620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: introduction of d.w. to jury

Text: Archie claims that the district court committed plain error when, before D.W. testified, the court introduced D.W. to the people in the courtroom and directed her to identify Archie. Prior to D.W.'s testimony, before the jury entered the court-room, the court and counsel discussed how the court would proceed with D.W.'s testimony. The court explained: [D.W.] is seven years old. What I would propose to do is, when she comes in, introduce myself to her and explain to her who everybody else in the well is. I would just say you know who . . . Archie is, if that's not objectionable to [defense counsel]. If that is  I would just say the other people sitting at these tables in suits are attorneys, and they may ask you some questions, let her know who the jurors are and just tell her that they're just going to be listening to what's going on, to what she has to say, who my court reporter is, who I am. And that's it. And I may just say that the people sitting in the back are people who come in and watch what's going on in courtrooms. And then what I may very well do is. . . I may ask [the prosecutor] to put something on the monitor there, just a piece of paper that I have, just a blank piece of paper there, one of those pieces of paper that I have in front, just so she knows that he may put things there and she'll be able to see them on her monitor here, and just  then I will ask her  and I'm willing  And then I would ask her what we talked about the other day, telling the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie and good or bad and promise to tell the truth. But I think it's kind of important that she feel that she knows who the players are in the courtroom, coming into a courtroom now. I know she's been in the courtroom before, empty. I think it's different when you come and you see a lot of people, that at least she knows who's here. The court asked both the State and Archie if they had any objection to this procedure, and both parties affirmatively stated that they had no objection. The jury was brought into the courtroom, and before D.W. entered, the court explained to the jury the process that would be followed. The court explained, I just wanted you to know that that's what I'm going to do, because she's a seven-year-old girl. However, the court also instructed the jury at that time that [D.W.'s] testimony has to be treated just the same as anybody else's testimony. No deference is given to her because she's a seven-year-old girl. I'm just trying to make her feel a little bit more comfortable in this strange environment. After D.W. entered the courtroom and took the stand, the court generally followed the procedure it had explained to the parties and the jury. The court specifically directed D.W.'s attention to the five people seated at the defendant's table, and asked D.W., One of them you know, and that's . . . Archie, right? D.W. nodded, and when prompted by the court to speak aloud, answered, Yes. Although Archie complains about this procedure on appeal, he did not object at trial, even after being expressly invited to do so. In the absence of plain error, when an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, the issue will be disregarded inasmuch as the trial court cannot commit error regarding an issue never presented and submitted for disposition in the trial court. [45] Consideration of plain error occurs, of course, at the discretion of an appellate court, [46] and the scope of our review is obviously limited by an appellant's failure to raise an argument in the trial court. Archie contends the court committed plain error, as it was prejudicial for the court to overly accommodate and to personalize himself to a witness in a criminal case. [47] Archie argues that the court's conduct implicitly communicated that this child needed to be treated tenderly as a victim and this validated the State's theory that D.W. had been sexually assaulted. [48] Archie also argues that the court erred by instructing D.W. to identify Archie in the courtroom before her testimony. We disagree with Archie's characterization of the court's accommodation of D.W.'s testimony. The court's procedure did not show undue favoritism toward D.W.; rather, the court simply recognized that D.W. was a 7-year-old child who might be unfamiliar with, and intimidated by, a courtroom setting. The trial court has broad discretion over the general conduct of trial. [49] The court must also exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence, so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth. [50] A trial court has wide discretion in fashioning procedures and modifying standard trial practices to accommodate the special needs of child witnesses. Recognizing the difficulties a particular child may face in trying to testify in a traditional courtroom setting, a judge may require that the environment in which a witness is to give testimony may be made less formal and intimidating. [51] The district court in this case exercised its discretion to help D.W. testify truthfully without being overwhelmed by her surroundings. As described above, the court carefully explained to the jury what it was doing and why it was being done and instructed the jury that D.W.'s testimony should be treated the same as the testimony of any other witness. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a jury followed the instructions given in arriving at its verdict. [52] There is no indication that the jury failed to respect its instruction here and no plain error apparent in the court's procedure.