Opinion ID: 2373626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Improper cross-examination of the defense expert

Text: [¶ 29] The appellant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making a series of improper hearsay statements on cross-examination of Dr. Denison, the appellant's expert witness, in an attempt to impeach the expert's truthfulness and the credibility of his expert opinion. Specifically, the appellant claims that the prosecutor violated the hearsay rule and the appellant's right to confront witnesses against him when the prosecutor asked Dr. Denison whether it would surprise him that the prosecutor spoke with specific people at the places with which Dr. Denison claimed to be affiliated and they said Dr. Denison was not affiliated with them. The following exchange occurred during Dr. Denison's cross-examination: Q. [By Prosecutor] Okay. So this wasn't necessarily like an interviewing thing, it doesn't sound like. A. [By Dr. Denison] No. This wassee, it's the Reid Academyor the Reid Institute, and they have a yearly or twice yearly set of presentations for investigators. So there are a number of different issues on that. Q. Does trouble in the workplace, detecting poison personnel sound familiar? A. Right. That was the name of it. Q. So that was what you presented? A. Right. Q. So it was about workplace situations. And you said you're a member of the Reid Institute? A. Yes. Q. Are you familiar with Joseph P. Buckley of the Reid Institution? A. No. Mark Reid is the person who invited me to come and did the first training that I was in. Q. And, interestingly enough, we contacted the Reid Institute, sir. Would it surprise you to know that they say you're not a member? A. Yes, that would surprise me to hear that. Yes, that definitely surprises me to hear that. Q. Would it you [sic] surprise you (Reporter interruption.) Q. [By Prosecutor] Would it surprise you to know thatyou say you've attended a three-day basic course and a one-day advanced course on the Reid technique of interviewing in 2005 as well as two other Reid courses? A. [By Dr. Denison] That would be right, yes, because I've done the Reid courses more than once. Q. Would it surprise you to hear that they say, Mr. Denison has never been authorized to teach the Reid technique of teaching and interrogation? A. Oh, I'm not certified to teach the Reid technique of interviewing and interrogation, and I'm sure I did not represent myself to be a teacher of the Reid technique of Q. And your current resume says you're a member of the Reid Institute. A. Yes. Q. And would it also surprise you (Reporter interruption.) Q. [By Prosecutor] Would it also surprise you that they said, It appears Mr. Denison joined the Reid Institution, an association made of primarily people who have attended our interviewing and interrogation class, in 2005 but did not renew his membership thereafter? A. [By Dr. Denison] That surprises me to hear that. Q. Okay. Let's talk about some of your other affiliations there, sir. One of them I noticed was the Academy Group you talked about specifically. You're associated with them? A. Associated as in I've been trained by them. . . . . Q. According to Martin Rehberg, who is the director of that institute, he says that you're not a member, and it would be inaccurate to say that you're affiliated with them. Let's talk about the Association of Threatlet's see if I get this rightAssociation of Threat Assessment Professionals. That's the membership out of California started by law enforcement agencies? A. Yes. Q. And you said A. I've had Q. I want to THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. One at a time, please. Your question, [prosecutor]? Q. [By Prosecutor] I want to make sure I heard you. You're involved in Colorado? A. [By Dr. Denison] Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And that would bethe current president is Gary Hickox? A. Yes. Q. Would it surprise you to know I spoke to ATAP today, the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals? I spoke to Justin at their office. He says you're not affiliated with them. A. That surprises me as well, because that is-that is an affiliation that requires sending in a yearly amount of money Q. Sure. A. unlike Q. So you just THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let him finish his answer. A. [By Dr. Denison]unlike AGI. And I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I certainly think using the word affiliation is appropriate. Q. [By Prosecutor] They didn't seem to think so. [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, argumentative, improper. THE COURT: Yeah. The remark made by [the prosecutor] is stricken. The jury's instructed to disregard it. Let's move to the next question, please. Q. [By Prosecutor] I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor. [¶ 30] Because the appellant did not object at trial to the questions he now complains were prosecutorial misconduct, we will review them for plain error. Teniente, 2007 WY 165, ¶ 10, 169 P.3d at 520; see also Stokes v. State, 2006 WY 134, ¶ 6, 144 P.3d 421, 423 (Wyo.2006) (constitutional questions which are not raised below are reviewed for plain error). The alleged misconduct is clearly reflected in the record, as indicated by the above quoted portions of the transcript. As to the second prong of the plain error analysiswhether a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violatedthe appellant argues that the prosecutor violated W.R.E. 802 by introducing hearsay statements. W.R.E. 802 provides, Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Wyoming or by statute. The appellant claims that no exceptions to the hearsay rule were offered and none exist. Additionally, the appellant argues that by introducing the hearsay statements the prosecutor violated the appellant's right to confrontation, as provided by the Wyoming Constitution, article I, section 10 and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the people that purportedly made the statements were not called as witnesses, nor were they identified to the defense prior to trial to allow the defense to call them. Furthermore, the appellant argues that the prosecutor improperly inserted himself, and by extension, his credibility as a respected member of the legal system, into the cross-examination of Dr. Denison. [¶ 31] In response, the State argues that the questions were proper as cross-examination of collateral matters under W.R.E. 608(b), and that that rule only precluded the prosecutor from seeking to introduce extrinsic evidence relating to the collateral matter of Dr. Denison's credentials. W.R.E. 608(b) provides in relevant part as follows: (b) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.... We are inclined to agree with the State in this particular situation. We have held that wide latitude should be granted in the cross-examination of expert witnesses. In that regard, we have said the following: Having offered his expert opinion the expert witness exposes himself to interrogation which ordinarily would have no place in the cross-examination of a factual witness, but the expert exposes himself to the most searching kind of investigation into his qualifications, the extent of his knowledge and the reasons for his opinion, including the facts and other matters upon which it is based. The cross-examiner can raise any subject fairly designed to test his expertise whether touched upon in his direct testimony or not. Chrysler Corp. v. Todorovich, 580 P.2d 1123, 1133 (Wyo.1978) (citations omitted). By taking the stand as an expert, Dr. Denison opened himself up to the kinds of questions that the prosecutor asked. The questions were consistent with W.R.E. 608(b), in that they related to a collateral matter, but were designed to cross-examine Dr. Denison in regard to his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and the bases of his opinions. Consequently, we cannot say that the prosecutor violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law. Therefore, the appellant has failed to prove plain error.