Opinion ID: 1621756
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dobbins' Objected-to Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim

Text: Dobbins first argues that the state improperly cross-examined him by asking several questions designed to emphasize to the jury that Dobbins had been present throughout the trial and therefore was able to tailor his testimony to fit the state's case. We note that this is the only claim of prosecutorial misconduct that Dobbins objected to at trial. Dobbins' misconduct claim is based on the following exchange: Q. Throughout the course of this trial, you've listened to all the witnesses? A. Um-hum. Q. Heard the testimony? A. Yeah. Q. And you've come to realize that you're the only witness who's gotten to hear anybody else's testimony; right? A. Yeah. I hope so. Q. You've had time to create what you told us today as it relates to the physical evidence? A. No. My lawyers already knew. I already told [`em]. Q. I'm not asking what your lawyers knew. ATTY: Objection, Your honor. He's asked a question. THE COURT: Sustained. ATTY: He's answered it. Q. You've had time now to plan what you were going to say when you were on the stand? A. No, I [did not] plan [anything]. Q. Didn't plan it? A. No. I just told [the jury] what happened. I'm tellin' the truth, and I want [the jury] to understand what happened.     Q. You understand that no other witnesses had the access like you did to all of the information and all the testimony before they testified? ATTY: Objection, irrelevant and speculative. THE COURT: Sustained. ATTY: Don't answer that. This exchange contained seven questions about Dobbins' presence at his trial and his ability to tailor his testimony based on the evidence presented. We said in Swanson that: [T]he prosecution cannot use a defendant's exercise of his right of confrontation to impeach the credibility of his testimony, at least in the absence of evidence that the defendant has tailored his testimony to fit the state's case. Without specific evidence of tailoring, such questions and comments by the prosecution imply that all defendants are less believable simply as a result of exercising the right of confrontation. 707 N.W.2d at 657-58 (footnote omitted). Here the state failed to present any evidence of Dobbins' actual tailoring that would justify this line of questioning; therefore, we conclude that the state's questions were improper and constituted prosecutorial misconduct. But Dobbins is not entitled to relief if the state's misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 658. In other words, we will not grant Dobbins a new trial if we conclude the jury's guilty verdict was surely unattributable to the misconduct. State v. Hunt, 615 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn.2000). Here, we conclude that the jury's guilty verdict was surely unattributable to the state's questions regarding Dobbins' presence at his trial. The following reasons support our conclusion. First, the district court timely sustained Dobbins' objections and, in doing so, significantly reduced the impact of the state's improper questions on the jury verdict. See State v. Steward, 645 N.W.2d 115, 122 (Minn.2002) (stating the jury must be presumed to have followed the [district] court's instructions and to have disregarded any question to which an objection was sustained). Second, during the cross-examination, Dobbins explicitly stated that he was simply telling the jury what had happened and denied planning his testimony based on other witnesses. Third, the evidence in this case overwhelmingly indicates that Dobbins shot and killed Lavender. King testified that he saw Dobbins shoot Lavender, and his testimony was consistent with that of Dobbins' girlfriend and her two sisters, who testified that Dobbins told them that he shot Lavender. King's testimony was also consistent with forensic evidence. In contrast, Dobbins' testimony that King shot Lavender was uncorroborated. In light of the evidence against Dobbins and the district court's sustaining of Dobbins' objections to the state's questions, we conclude that the jury's guilty verdict was surely unattributable to the state's misconduct. We therefore hold that the state's misconduct in asking questions directed to Dobbins' exercise of his right of confrontation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.