Opinion ID: 1981028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Recalling the Defense Pathologist

Text: Mr. Isaacs was arrested on July 17, 1992. He requested a speedy trial on August 19 making October 28 the latest possible trial date. Discovery was to be completed by September 1, but Isaacs refused to divulge his defenses. It was not until September 24 that Isaacs filed a motion requesting the State to provide a chemical analysis of the victim's blood. From this discovery request, Isaacs learned that the victim's blood was tested for alcohol, but for nothing else. Thus, on September 30, Isaacs filed another motion requesting that the victim's blood be tested for chemical substances. The court held a hearing on October 8 to determine whether to order additional testing. The State objected to Isaacs' motion and requested that he reveal how the chemical substance evidence would be relevant. Isaacs refused to reveal his defenses. The trial court denied the defense motion until Isaacs was willing to make a showing of materiality. On October 13, Isaacs filed an amended motion in which he revealed his defenses and how the information was material to them. The motion was granted. At a hearing on October 19, the court indicated that it had made arrangements with a laboratory in Indianapolis to conduct the tests. According to Isaacs, he first learned of the need to specify which drugs he wanted tested during a deposition of Dr. Harruff on October 15. The trial began on October 28, before the test results were complete. The results were not available until after Dr. Teas, the pathologist called by Isaacs, was released as a witness. When the results became available, Isaacs attempted to recall Dr. Teas. According to Isaacs' offer of proof, Dr. Teas would have testified that the level of Ephedrine in the victim's blood should have been listed as a contributing cause of death. Noting Isaacs' earlier refusal to indicate why the defense required the testing, the court found Isaacs' own delay and failure to comply with the discovery requirements had solely led to the need for the request. During Isaacs' examination of Dr. Michael Evans, a defense toxicologist, counsel asked whether he was qualified to ... tell the jury whether this dosage contributed to death The State objected, asserting that defense counsel had not laid a proper foundation. Appellant withdrew the question. When Isaacs renewed his request to recall Dr. Teas, the trial judge denied the request and noted that, [Dr. Evans] said he can make that determination. You didn't bring it out from him. The court noted that Evans could have provided the same testimony. Isaacs claims the trial court denied his constitutional right to present evidence by refusing to allow the recall of Dr. Teas. Indiana Rule of Evidence 611(a) explains that [t]he court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. Ind.Evidence Rule 611(a). The trial judge is provided wide latitude to control the flow of the trial proceedings. This includes discretion to determine the order of proof and the presentation of evidence. In Wray v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1062 we held: The trial court has broad discretion in determining the order of proof and in controlling trial proceedings. The recall of witnesses to correct or add testimony due to mistake or oversight is [also] within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. at 1066 (citations omitted). Rulings of this nature may be based in part on a court's assessment of a party's own behavior and compliance with pre-trial orders. See, e.g., Wiseheart v. State (1986), Ind., 491 N.E.2d 985. In the instant case, Isaacs' own inaction and refusal to comply with the rules of discovery delayed the test results. Moreover, Dr. Teas' testimony was not vital to Isaacs' case. Isaacs could have presented identical testimony through another witness. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to permit Isaacs to recall Dr. Teas as a witness. It certainly did not violate Isaacs' Sixth Amendment rights.