Opinion ID: 1312858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The trial court's permitting cross-examination of the defendant concerning a telephone bill.

Text: This is more straw clutching. As the trial court pointed out, the defendant had opened up the matter of the telephone bill on her own direct examination by accusing one of the prosecuting witnesses of making several 'phone calls to a girl in Utah and charging them to Mr. Hanneman's telephone [2] without permission. This was apparently intended to show the depraved character of the prosecuting witness. On defendant's cross-examination, it developed that there was a large telephone bill resulting primarily from calls to and from her friends, the Quinn family, in England. She testified: They had called and I had called them, and we talked back and forth. We made arrangements with a finance company to pay the bill. It got a little higher than we estimated it to be. She was asked how much that telephone bill was, and she said, About $800, I guess. If it is any more, then it will be taken care of. The prosecuting attorney then asked: Could it be in the neighborhood of $3,000? Her reply was, No, it couldn't. If it is, it sure got awful high. As the trial court pointed out, the lengthy irrelevant direct examination may have resulted in some irrelevant cross-examination. The gist of the matter is that any telephone bill the defendant may have contracted was being taken care of. That seems to be entirely creditable to the defendant, not something that could prejudice the jury against her.