Opinion ID: 1287369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: right to present complete defense

Text: Poe claims he was denied his constitutional right to present a complete defense because the jury was not permitted to view Harper's videotaped police interview. The videotape is purportedly a January 21, 2005, interview of Harper by Bogdanoff and Laney. Poe claimed that Harper was involved in the planning and execution of the crime, and Poe wanted the jury to observe the videotape of Harper's interview. Essentially, Poe wanted to attack Harper's credibility by having the jury view the police interview and compare it with Harper's testimony at trial. The interview had not been transcribed, and Poe attempted to introduce the videotape into evidence and to use portions of the videotape to show instances when Harper's statements were allegedly contrary to his trial testimony. Poe claimed that during the interview, Harper was threatened with criminal charges, and that the threat caused Harper to implicate Poe in the robbery and murder. The videotape was discussed at several points during the trial. During cross-examination, Poe's counsel asked Harper whether the police had threatened him during the interview, and Harper stated, I don't believe I said that. Counsel offered the tape to establish that during the interview, the police showed Harper a warrant for his arrest on drug charges. Harper testified that he considered the warrant to be a threat. Counsel then asked Harper if police told him that he was a center pivot access in this whole thing. The State's objection of improper impeachment was sustained. At a sidebar conference, Poe's counsel stated he would make an offer of proof of the entire videotape to prove that the police had threatened Harper. The trial court expressed concern about showing the entire videotape, because on direct examination, Harper admitted the police had threatened him. The videotape was marked as an exhibit, and the trial court was requested to watch the videotape. After viewing the interview, the court again sustained the State's objection to the videotape's admission. The exhibit was made a part of the court record, with the provision that it would not be shown to the jury. The second offer of the videotape was made during the cross-examination of Laney. Poe's counsel again requested to show the interview to the jury because Laney stated he could not remember certain portions of it. The State objected because showing the interview to the jury was not the proper way to refresh Laney's recollection. The court again refused to allow the jury to view the interview, but permitted Laney to refresh his recollection by viewing it. After Laney reviewed the videotape, cross-examination resumed. At another point, counsel sought to show the videotape to demonstrate who mentioned certain pieces of evidence first: the police officers or Harper. The trial court again declined to show the videotape because Harper and the officers had testified in court. Finally, after both parties had rested, Poe's counsel again asked that the jury be allowed to view a portion of the videotape to see how Harper's story had changed. Although the interview actually lasted 5½ hours, the videotape showed only about 2 hours. The trial court again denied the offer of proof. Although the jury observed the demeanor of the police officers and Harper at trial, Poe claims he was denied an opportunity to present a complete defense, because the jury was not allowed to view the witnesses' demeanor, their tone of voice, and the emotions exhibited during the actual interview. He claims the jury should have been permitted to see whether the threatening nature of the interrogation was the catalyst that resulted in Harper's inculpating Poe. Brief for appellant at 16. Counsel wanted the jury to assess Harper's credibility by viewing the videotape. At trial, Harper testified that he had not been honest with police during the first part of the interview, but that he was honest after the officers told him they were going to arrest him. Harper said the police told him there was an arrest warrant for him on marijuana charges, which Harper considered to be a threat. Poe's counsel asked: Well, you were getting the feeling that they were putting you, as you put it or they put it, in the mix, right? Harper testified: Yeah. That was kind of sort of. Harper testified that after the officers told him about the arrest warrant, he started crying because [t]hey tried to take me away from my family by bringing up the charges. Harper said he told the officers he wanted a guarantee that he would not go to jail, because if he went to jail, there would be no one to care for his family. The police responded that they could not provide any guarantees. Harper stated that he was arrested and booked that day on the charges but was held for only 5 minutes before he was released on a street release bond. The charges included a felony, but it was Harper's understanding that they would be dismissed if he cooperated. Bogdanoff was cross-examined concerning any threats made to Harper. He told Harper there was an arrest warrant for him, but he denied that he had threatened Harper. Bogdanoff said a statement can be considered a threat, depending on how it is perceived. He told Harper that Lee's murder could have the death penalty associated with it and that people can get 50 years in prison on drug charges. The detectives had an affidavit for a drug charge on the table during the interview with Harper. Bogdanoff told Harper that it might be arranged for Harper to go home that day if he cooperated. Poe claimed the videotape would show how Harper had changed his story from I don't know much to eventually saying that [Poe] confessed to him. [5] The issue is whether the refusal to permit the jury to see the videotaped interview of Harper violated Poe's right to present a complete defense. Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment ... the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants `a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.' Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (citations omitted). We have previously held that it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to allow an entire videotaped interview to be shown to a jury. In State v. Molina, 271 Neb. 488, 713 N.W.2d 412 (2006), the trial court denied the defendant's request to play a 6½-hour interview between the defendant's wife and a police officer, because the videotape would cause undue delay and be a waste of time. We concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the relevance of playing the entire interview was substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay or a waste of time. [6] Here, the content of Harper's interview was extensively covered on direct and cross-examination. The videotape shows that the officers repeatedly told Harper they could not make any promises to him about what would happen if he told them the truth. Harper expressed concern about going to jail and not being able to provide for his family. At one point during the interview, Harper cried. The officers told Harper a felony warrant might be activated if he did not cooperate by telling them the truth. During the interview, the officers pointed out inconsistencies in Harper's previous statements. Harper eventually said that he would tell the officers what [they] want[ed] to hear. Poe claims this statement shows that Harper was offering to skew the facts against Poe. However, Poe is asking this court to consider the statement out of context. After Harper's comment, Laney responded: What you're saying is, `I'm going to give you what you want to hear.' What I'm hoping is you're going to tell me who did this. Harper then stated, I'm going to tell you what you want, but I've got to be able to go home tonight. [7] Evidence can be excluded from a criminal trial under rules established by the Legislature and Congress. See Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006). The Court stated: While the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury. 547 U.S. at 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727. Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178, 719 N.W.2d 263 (2006). The rules of evidence allow the exclusion of evidence if its probative value is outweighed by other factors. Harper, Bogdanoff, and Laney all testified at trial. They were thoroughly and extensively cross-examined regarding the interview. The jury observed their demeanor and was able to evaluate their credibility. Harper was questioned whether he had been threatened and whether he was offered any deal in exchange for his testimony. Each testified concerning whether threats were made to Harper during the interview. We conclude the refusal to allow the jury to view Harper's interview did not deny Poe a complete defense. Poe was permitted extensive and thorough cross-examination of Harper, Bogdanoff, and Laney. Although the jury did not see the videotape of the interview, Poe's counsel was permitted to question the witnesses concerning all aspects of it. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Poe's requests to play the videotape for the jury.