Opinion ID: 2466689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Dean's Testimony

Text: At the time of Bailey's trial, Dean had entered a guilty plea, been sentenced, and filed a notice of appeal. Outside the presence of the jury, the court held a hearing at which Dean, through counsel, advised the court that he wished to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and, failing that, did not wish to testify. The court found that Dean had no Fifth Amendment privilege to assert. Dean's counsel did not object to this determination. Dean indicated he was not willing to testify despite the court's decision, and the court advised Dean to speak with his counsel about the matter. Dean was called to testify without objection. Dean identified Bailey, admitted they were first cousins and good friends, and refused to testify further. Dean did not actually assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in front of the jury; instead he repeatedly stated, I'm not testifying. After dismissing the jury, the trial court found Dean in contempt for his refusal to testify. Bailey argues that it was error to allow the State to put Dean on the stand knowing that he would refuse to testify. Bailey cites cases in which the witness had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege and was put on the stand for the sole purpose of asserting that privilege before the jury. State v. Crumm, 232 Kan. 254, 256-57, 654 P.2d 417 (1982) (finding no error in a trial court's refusal to let the defendant ask questions to which the witness would assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege); State v. Simpson, 29 Kan. App.2d 862, 872-73, 32 P.3d 1226 (2001) (finding error when a witness' attorney invoked the witness' Fifth Amendment privilege in front of the jury). The State contends that Dean did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege. Further, the State argues that Dean was not called for the sole purpose of asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury; rather, Dean was called in hopes that he had decided to testify. Bailey cites Anderson, 240 Kan. at 700-01, 732 P.2d 732, for the proposition that a witness retains his or her Fifth Amendment privilege through the course of the appeal. The witness in Anderson, however, did not have a pending appeal. That individual had entered a guilty plea but had filed a motion to withdraw the plea, which was denied; he had not yet been sentenced, nor had the appeal time run on the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. Under those unique circumstances, the court in Anderson determined that the witness had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege. Anderson, 240 Kan. at 701, 732 P.2d 732. In Longobardi, this court specifically limited the Anderson ruling, stating: We hold that once a plea of guilty has been regularly accepted by the court, and no motion is made to withdraw it, the privilege against self-incrimination ends after sentence is imposed. Syllabus paragraph 2 of Anderson is hereby limited to this ruling. Longobardi, 243 Kan. at 409, 756 P.2d 1098. Because Dean had entered a guilty plea and had been sentenced, the trial court was correct in finding that Dean had no Fifth Amendment privilege protecting the events in this case. See Longobardi, 243 Kan. 404, Syl. ¶ 1, 756 P.2d 1098. As Dean had no valid Fifth Amendment privilege, his refusal to testify before the jury is different than a refusal by a witness called for the sole purpose of asserting a valid Fifth Amendment privilege to cause jury speculation. Bailey argues that Dean's limited statements were inherently prejudicial and that the prejudice was compounded by the fact that before refusing to testify, [Dean] told the jury that he and [Bailey] were cousins and that they have been good friends and buddies for a long time. At trial, Bailey's theory was that (1) the events were separated in time because Bailey had returned to the house to rescue Dean, requiring that felony murder must have occurred during the unlawful discharge of a firearm; and (2) Dean, not Bailey, had been the actual shooter, i.e., Dean committed the unlawful discharge of a firearm. Dean's testimony and subsequent refusal to testify further were not prejudicial to this theory; in fact, Dean's testimony arguably bolstered Bailey's position. In any event, any inference the jury made regarding Dean's refusal to testify was inconsequential. Affirmed. BUSER, J., assigned. [1]