Opinion ID: 2585503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court's Comment on Fields's Out-of-court Statements

Text: Before permitting the jury to hear Detective Esquivel's testimony recounting Fields's extrajudicial statements, the trial court cautioned the jury, saying: [T]his is to advise you and instruct you that the questions to be asked of Sergeant Esquivel are asked for the burden of proving and sole purpose[ ] of impeachment of any of the testimony of Defense Witness Juan Williams who was called yesterday and cannot be considered by you for any other purpose. You will be further instructed on that later but this is offered for the limited purpose of impeachment. It is impeachment of Juan Williams under the instructions that you will receive. Defendant contends the trial court violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as analogous state constitutional guarantees, by commenting on the evidence in this manner. [7] Defendant claims that the wording of the instruction improperly removed an issue from the jury. In particular, he contends that because the court instructed the jury that Detective Esquivel's testimony regarding Fields's statements is impeachment of Juan Williams, rather than is for the impeachment of Juan Williams, the court improperly commented on the evidence. Defendant magnifies the seriousness of this issue, for it appears the trial court merely misspoke, as evidenced by its earlier statements that the evidence was for the sole purpose of impeachment and for the limited purpose of impeachment. In any event, even were we to assume error, it could have caused no prejudice. The jury was instructed that it should consider the instructions as a whole and that it was the sole judge[ ] of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given to the testimony of each witness. More specifically, the court instructed the jury that I have not intended by anything I have done or any questions I may have asked or by any ruling I may have made to intimate or suggest what you should find to be the facts or that I believe or disbelieve any witness. If anything I have done or said has to so indicate [sic ], you will disregard it and form your own conclusion. Further: Do not conclude that because an instruction is given I am expressing any opinion as to the facts. Finally, Juan Williams was more seriously impeached by the testimony of Officer Robert Sayers, who testified that when he interviewed Williams the night of the murder, Williams reported seeing two suspects run up to the victim's truck. This was the essence of the impeachment value provided by Broderick Fields's statements to Detective Esquivel. Any irregularity in the trial court's limiting instruction was thus harmless.