Opinion ID: 1201386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: surrebuttal testimony

Text: At trial, Henry claimed that the state had confused some of his boot prints with those of an investigating detective. He alleges here that the state's tracker offered new evidence in rebuttal  the position of Henry's footprint near a drag mark up the berm  and that he therefore should have been allowed surrebuttal testimony. The court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Young, 116 Ariz. 385, 387, 569 P.2d 815, 817 (1977). The tracker testified on direct examination that two sets of footprints, matching those of Henry and Foote, were photographically depicted along the drag marks from the berm to the bush. He also said that a coyote print was located on top of one of the boot prints on the berm, indicating that the boot print was placed there before the photographs were taken by investigators (i.e., an investigator most probably could not have made the print). Henry testified that Foote dragged the victim backwards up the berm. On rebuttal, the tracker testified that the footprints were facing forward, and repeated that one heeled footprint in the area had a coyote print in it. There was nothing new about this evidence, and no need for surrebuttal.