Opinion ID: 2378907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Errors in Questioning Detective Leyshock

Text: Shurn first contends that defense counsel erroneously permitted Detective Leyshock to inject his personal opinion of Shurn's guilt. During cross-examination by defense counsel, Detective Leyshock testified: Q: Detective Leyshock, you've kind of made your life's work to put the Shurns in jail, haven't you? A: I've stayed on top of them. Q: You participated in the prosecution, the arrest of both Larry Shurnis that correct? A: Yes. Q: also Charles Shurn; is that correct? A: That's right. Q: And now you're trying to send this man [Shurn] to jail; is that correct? A: He deserves to go to jail. [emphasis added]. Q: You feel that way, don't you? A: Yes, sir. Q: Okay. Now, you weren't present when Charles Taylor got killed, were you? A: No, sir. Read in context, trial counsel's questions did not prejudice Shurn. Trial counsel was merely attempting to show Detective Leyshock's bias against Shurn. This was reasonable trial strategy. Shurn also contends that trial counsel erroneously permitted Detective Leyshock to inject hearsay statements into evidence. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked Detective Leyshock whether he had personal knowledge that Shurn's brothers told Shurn that Taylor was a potential witness. Detective Leyshock answered that someone told him that Larry or Charles told Shurn that Taylor was a potential witness. Defense counsel immediately countered this statement by asking Detective Leyshock whether he was present during this communication. Detective Leyshock responded that he was not. Defense counsel was attempting to show that Detective Leyshock had not heard Shurn's brothers tell Shurn that Taylor was a potential witness in their trials. Defense counsel cannot be ineffective for attempting to impeach the state's witness and receiving a nonresponsive statement. Finally, Shurn contends that defense counsel should have objected to Detective Leyshock's testimony that he had offered to put Taylor in a witness protection program. This testimony occurred on cross-examination by defense counsel. In fact, on direct examination by the state, Detective Leyshock first testified that Taylor stated he feared for his life because he had heard the Shurns were going to kill him. On cross-examination, defense counsel logically asked why Taylor refused the witness protection program. The transcript, as a whole, indicates that defense counsel effectively impeached Detective Leyshock about the witness protection program.