Opinion ID: 1889530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Elizabeth Francis

Text: With regard to certain testimony of appellant's sister, Elizabeth Francis, appellant argued the following in his brief: The prosecution then solicited more bad character evidence from [a]ppellant's sister, Betty Francis, over the objection of defense counsel. Witness Francis told the jury that she had filed a constructive trust case against the [a]ppellant because she was having some difficulty with the way he was abusing her father. Defense counsel's objection and motion to strike this testimony was sustained but obviously it could not be erased from the minds of the jurors. The prosecution then inquired from Francis as to how long it had been since she and the [a]ppellant were on talking terms. Witness Francis responded, The last time when he beat me up. While once again defense counsel objected, and had the testimony stricken, it is inconceivable that the prosecution did not anticipate the answer to this question which obviously was done to further the prosecution's portrayal of the [a]ppellant as a bad, violent person who should be convicted or deserved punishment for other bad conduct. Ms. Francis, in responding to the prosecution's questions, indicated that [a]ppellant was prohibited from going to her home or place of employment by virtue of a court order. We summarize appellant's contentions on appeal in the following manner:

c. The State asked the witness what she did concerning appellant's knowledge of where she lived. Appellant objected, but was overruled. The witness responded that she had obtained a court order to prevent him from entering her premises.