Opinion ID: 844212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Other Claims of Evidentiary Error

Text: Defendant contends the court should have sustained his objection that the prosecutor, when questioning Colleen Heuvelman, asked a leading question. The prosecutor was referring to a photographic lineup that included a photograph of Larry Jones. Heuvelman testified she told police investigators that Jones resembled the man she had seen. The prosecutor, after confirming Heuvelman had told the police that Jones's eyes were close, asked, Did you tell the police that there was a possibility of 20 to 40 percent? Heuvelman said yes. The prosecutor then asked: Did you ever identify [Jones] as being the person that you saw standing outside the bank? Defendant objected that the prosecutor was leading the witness. The court overruled defendant's objection, and Heuvelman responded, No, sir. Accepting for purposes of argument that the prosecutor's question was leading, [9] the evidence could not have prejudiced defendant, as other evidence firmly established defendant was the only person Heuvelman ever positively identified as the man she had seen. Defendant also complains his ability to question Detective Tarpley was compromised because the court sustained objections that some of defense counsel's questions were leading. But nothing prevented counsel from eliciting the evidence he sought by rephrasing his questions. The court also did not err by overruling a defense objection on hearsay grounds after the prosecutor asked Lorraine Ripple if Deborah Lankford had said anything to Ripple about testifying. The evidence was admitted not to establish the truth of anything Lankford had said, but to bolster Ripple's credibility by showing she was testifying despite her fear her testimony would compromise her safety. Finally, the record belies defendant's claims that the trial court's rulings had a chilling effect on the defense. The court's interruptions, quips, comments, and evidentiary rulings undoubtedly were somewhat irritating, but nothing in the record suggests defendant was thereby dissuaded or prevented from attacking the prosecution's evidence or from fully presenting his case.