Opinion ID: 166399
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eliciting Evidence of Codefendant's Attempt to Influence Witness Huber

Text: 76 Mr. Thornburg contends that the prosecutors improperly elicited testimony from state witness Eric Huber that codefendant Anderson and his wife had attempted to get him to provide a false statement to the police. Huber testified that Anderson, Embrey, and Thornburg left the Nath house together at 3:00 a.m. on the 28th and that Anderson was dropped off at his house about 6 a.m. by a gold car resembling Thornburg's. Huber, however, had made a contrary statement to police officers when he was first interviewed. Such a prior inconsistent statement is often used by opposing counsel for impeachment. And to reduce the impact of the impeachment, counsel may elicit the prior statement on direct examination and allow the witness to explain. That is what happened here: 77 Q. [Prosecutor]. Sir, did you give a different statement than what you've told this jury and law enforcement when you were interviewed? 78 A. [Huber]: Yes, sir. I did. 79 Q. That was back in October 3rd of 1996? 80 A. Yes, sir. 81 Q. What statement did you give them? 82 A. I stated in that report that Glenn — Mr. Anderson rode home with me, his wife and his son and that I drove, and that was a lie. 83 Q. So basically you gave an alibi at that time. 84 A. Yes, sir. I did. 85 Q. Who told you, sir, to tell OSBI that statement — that story? 86 A. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. 87 Tr. II at 230-31. There is, of course, always the possibility that defense counsel would not have tried to impeach Huber with the prior statement, in which case the misconduct of the Andersons should have been inadmissible. But if defense counsel wished to adopt that course, he needed to object to the direct examination concerning the prior statement. We see no impropriety in the prosecutor's anticipation of likely impeachment, absent something in the record indicating that defense counsel would forego the impeachment. 88