Opinion ID: 2076252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: testimony of aaron mcnair

Text: Hunt contends that the trial judge erred in permitting Aaron McNair, an eyewitness to Officer Adolfo's murder, to testify that he was released from prison for protection. On cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to show that McNair had received favorable treatment from the State, including release from jail on a disorderly conduct charge unrelated to this case, in return for his testimony. On re-direct examination, when asked why he had been released from jail, McNair replied, protection. Counsel for the defense objected, and at a bench conference, the judge told the prosecutor, you are treading on thin ice. After defense counsel indicated his concern about where the questioning was leading, the prosecutor volunteered to go on to other matters. McNair was asked no more questions on the issue. Hunt now argues that the jury was left with the impression that McNair was released from jail for protection from Hunt. But at trial, he did not raise the issue beyond his objection to McNair's answer. He did not ask the court to strike McNair's answer. He did not move for a mistrial. He did not ask for cautionary instructions. After the judge effectively sustained his objection by warning the prosecutor, Hunt remained silent. Hunt got everything he asked for. The trial judge did not commit error by failing to give Hunt more than he asked for. 5 McLain, Maryland Evidence, § 103.10 at 30 (1987). Even if Hunt had properly and timely sought curative action, we would find no reversible error. As appellant concedes in his brief, there was no evidence that McNair's need for protection was linked to Hunt. The naked reference to McNair's need for protection did not prejudice Hunt. Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 588, 530 A.2d 743, 752 (1987), sentence vacated and remanded, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815, 100 L.Ed.2d 916, sentence rev'd, 314 Md. 111, 549 A.2d 17 (1988).