Opinion ID: 839231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: harmlessness of error

Text: I also agree with the Court of Appeals that the error was not harmless. Simpson testified that defendant was the shooter. However, Simpson testified against defendant in exchange for full immunity; before testifying at the first trial, he indicated that he wanted to testify truthfully but was concerned that he would be charged with perjury if his testimony conflicted with his previous statement; Simpson has told several different versions of the events; in his very first statement to the police, Simpson said that Lamp was the shooter and that defendant was not even there, which is consistent with his most recent statement; Simpson testified that defendant cut off Miller’s ear, but the police testified that there is no physical evidence indicating that Miller’s ear had been cut off; Simpson testified that defendant killed Miller for Williams, but Williams testified that he did not even know Miller and the police indicated that there was no evidence that Williams was in any way involved with Miller’s death; and Lamp threatened to kill Simpson if he said anything to the police to endanger his plea agreement, a threat on which Simpson believed Lamp would follow through. Lamp also testified that defendant shot Miller. However, Lamp also testified against defendant in exchange for a plea agreement; Lamp testified that defendant cut off Miller’s ear, but the police testified that there was no physical evidence indicating that Miller’s ear had been cut off; Lamp testified that defendant killed Miller for Williams, but Williams testified that he did not even know Miller, and the police indicated that there was no evidence that Williams 18 was in any way involved in Miller’s death; Lamp threatened to kill Simpson if he said anything to the police to endanger his plea agreement; defendant had an affair with Lamp’s wife; and, finally, Simpson has stated that Lamp shot Miller. Zantello testified that defendant was not at home when she arrived at home and that she overheard defendant and Simpson talking about blowing off somebody’s head. However, in her very first statement to the police she said that defendant was home when she arrived there and that defendant was not involved in Miller’s murder, which is consistent with her most recent statement; and she testified that she overheard defendant and Simpson talking about cutting off somebody’s ear, but the police testified that there is no physical evidence indicating that Miller’s ear had been cut off. Mock testified that defendant told her that he shot Miller. However, Mock was a suspect in Miller’s murder; Barr, who witnessed the same conversation, testified that defendant did not say that he was the shooter9 and that they were all drunk when this confession allegedly occurred; and, finally, Mock testified that defendant said that he cut off Miller’s ear, but Barr testified that she did not think that defendant said anything about cutting Miller’s ear off, and the police testified that there was no physical evidence indicating that Miller’s ear had been cut off. 9 The majority claims that there were only “minor discrepancies” between Mock’s and Barr’s testimony. Ante at 21 n 27. Given that Mock testified that defendant said that he was the one who killed Miller and Barr testified that defendant did not say he was the one who killed Miller, I disagree. 19 There are also inconsistencies between the testimonies of Lamp, Simpson, Mock, and Zantello regarding who showed up when at defendant’s house on the night that Miller was murdered. See note 2, supra. Finally, three of defendant’s sisters testified that defendant was home the night that Miller was killed. The evidence against defendant, in other words, was anything but overwhelming. All the prosecutor’s witnesses had compelling motives to lie. Simpson, Lamp, and Mock were all suspects. Zantello was defendant’s ex­ girlfriend and, according to Zantello, her then-current boyfriend, who beat her, forced her to testify against defendant because the prosecutor-- the same prosecutor prosecuting defendant’s case-- allegedly promised him no prison time if she did so. Under these circumstances, excluding Simpson’s and Zantello’s written statements that indicated that defendant was innocent was not harmless error. These statements could very well have caused the jury to have reasonable doubt about defendant’s guilt. The prosecutor argues that the recanting statements are cumulative because the jury already heard evidence that Simpson and Zantello had made prior inconsistent statements. However, Zantello’s earlier inconsistent statement made to the police just after the incident and while she was still living with defendant did not undermine her first trial testimony to the extent that her later written statement would have. As the Court of Appeals explained: The jury heard evidence that Zantello’s first statements to police were that defendant was home when she returned from the hospital, and that she knew nothing about Miller’s disappearance 20 except that defendant was not involved. However, these statements were given shortly after Miller’s disappearance, and when Zantello was living with defendant. The jury could have easily decided that the earlier inconsistent statements did not undermine the trial testimony, reasoning that Zantello had given a statement in March, 1990 that incriminated defendant, and that at the time of trial, Zantello was no longer involved with defendant, and was therefore no longer willing to lie in his behalf. The fact that Zantello reaffirmed her earlier position shortly before the second trial would have undermined her trial testimony in a way that the earlier statements could not. [Blackston (On Remand), supra at 8.] In addition, [r]egarding Simpson, although he was impeached with having given prior inconsistent versions of what happened to Miller, as set forth above, and he admitted at the first trial that he had told Jody Harrington shortly after the shooting that only he and Lamp were involved, he also admitted telling police that he never made such a statement to Harrington. Further, Detective Sergeant Averill testified that Simpson had remained consistent in the version of events he claimed to have witnessed, and stated that Simpson’s testimony at defendant’s first trial had been consistent with this version of events. Had Simpson’s inconsistent written statement . . . been admitted under MRE 806, the jury would have had a very different view of Simpson’s credibility. [Id.] Because the evidence against defendant is by no means overwhelming, and because the excluded evidence was significantly probative, I agree with the Court of Appeals that the error here was not harmless. Even assuming that the issue was not properly preserved because, although defendant objected to the exclusion of the evidence on the basis of MRE 613, he did not object on the basis of MRE 806, MRE 103(d) provides that unpreserved “plain errors affecting substantial rights” can be raised for the first time on 21 appeal.10 As discussed in part II, in order for a defendant to obtain relief for an 10 The prosecutor arguably should be precluded from asserting that the issue is unpreserved given that, in his brief to the Court of Appeals, he conceded that defendant “had brought a motion for a new trial on this basis expressly under MRE 806, and thereby, preserved the issue for appeal” and stated that as “a preserved claim of constitutional error, this Court must determine whether the people have established beyond a reasonable doubt that any error was harmless.” Moreover, the error was arguably properly preserved under MRE 103, which provides: (a) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and (1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or (2) Offer of proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.