Opinion ID: 1058506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sergeant Ashton's Testimony

Text: Relying upon Crawford v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), defense counsel complains that Sergeant Ashton's testimony regarding Shaun Washington's identification of the defendant constituted inadmissible hearsay that violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals and the trial court that the defendant elicited this hearsay evidence and cannot complain now about its introduction. When defense counsel cross-examined Sergeant Ashton about his preparation of photo spread GG, the following exchange occurred. Q: And as case coordinator during your investigation are you aware of any other individuals that were interviewed that identified GG, number six, as being there? A: Yes, sir. Q: And who would that be, sir? A: Right offhand I wouldn't know. I'd have to look at my case. Q: Okay. Would you please  do you have that somewhere nearby? A: I believe I've got a copy of it in my office. Q: Okay. Could you go obtain that? A: It'd take me a few moments. Q: Okay. Could you do that, sir? THE COURT: What are you asking Mr. Ozment? MR. OZMENT: You honor, I'm asking him to obtain whatever other identifications were made of GG six. The court then recessed for the evening, and when cross-examination resumed the next day, the following exchange occurred between defense counsel and Sergeant Ashton. Q: Sergeant Ashton, yesterday when we left off we were talking about the photo spread and the people that had identified people in the photo spread, correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: Particularly photo spread GG, correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: And the last question I left on was who else identified someone out of photo spread GG. Have you had an opportunity to check your records on that? A: The best I could determine it was Christopher Lewis and Shaun Washington. Q: Okay. So out of all the people that  when they were shown this photo spread by officers in your department that identified Gregory Robinson during the course of your investigation the only two were Christopher James and Shaun Lewis, correct  Shaun Lewis James? A: That's what we've got in their statements, correct. On re-direct, Sergeant Ashton testified that, while giving a statement on June 13, 1997, Shaun Washington looked at photographic array GG and identified the defendant as MacGreg. When asked about Washington's demeanor at the time, Sergeant Ashton responded, He was very sure of himself. The defendant did not interpose an objection to Sergeant Ashton's testimony. While the defendant may very well be correct that both Crawford and Tennessee Rule of Evidence Rule 803(1.1) bar hearsay statements of identification if the declarant does not testify at trial, neither Crawford nor Rule 803(1.1) is dispositive in this case because the defendant himself both elicited and opened the door to the testimony he now assigns as error. Under these circumstances, the defendant is not entitled to relief. Indeed, it is well-settled that a litigant will not be permitted to take advantage of errors which he himself committed, or invited, or induced the trial court to commit, or which were the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct. Norris v. Richards, 193 Tenn. 450, 246 S.W.2d 81, 85 (1952); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279-80 (Tenn.2000); Tenn. R.App. P. 36(a). Thus, the defendant is not entitled to relief on this claim.