Opinion ID: 2345444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Letter Redaction In Guilt Phase

Text: During her direct testimony, Truitt testified and read from several letters that Johnson sent to her while he was detained awaiting trial. In those letters, Johnson attempted to convince Truitt not to testify at his murder trial. Several letters were admitted into evidence during the guilt phase. One letter, dated April 25, 2007, was State's Exhibit 43. Truitt was asked to read the following passage from that exhibit as it was displayed on the courtroom monitors: I want to know from your mouth, if I was to die how would you  if I was to die how would your life be after that? Think hard about that before you answer. I don't know how you're going to go about my case, but I'm going to put it just like this. If you show up at court, that's on you, meaning that's something that you'll have to live ... [page turned] ... to live with. But if you're not going to, then just  then you just can't show up at court. The state may ride to your house and your Grandmom house to try to find you but, if they can't, then they'll have to let me go. If  has to let me go. It's just like how that situation went with my mom and my little sister that time when they told on me and my mom husband got shot. [Prosecutor interrupts to move witness to different portion of exhibit]. (emphasis added). No contemporaneous objection was raised. The emphasized sentence was addressed the next day, at a recess: [Prosecutor # 1]: The second issue is with regard to an exhibit that's already been entered into evidence. Your Honor, as you may recall, Lakeisha Truitt was reading a letter that was sent to her by the defendant. And it was put on the overhead and she read a portion of the letter. And Prosecutor # 2 stopped her at some point during  The Court: I was wondering when I would hear about this. I've been waiting to see. Have you reviewed those letters? I thought that the defense had an opportunity to review those letters for content, and they would have asked that certain portions be redacted. I was surprised they had not. [Prosecutor # 2]: They did have the letters, Your Honor. The Court: I thought so. And I just  I don't know  you're talking about the previous incident where his stepfather was shot or something? [Prosecutor # 1]: Yes, Your Honor. And I guess it's the State's position at this point that the defense take a position with regards to whether they want a curative instruction or whether  we're amenable to redacting that part. It hasn't gone back to the jury yet. I mean, part of it was read and it was on the overhead, but, I mean, the State wouldn't oppose taking that out at this point. The Court: Defense? [Defense Attorney # 1]: Your Honor, I did discuss the issue with Prosecutor # 1 yesterday at the end of the day and then again today. We did have the letters. They were provided to us. And, quite frankly, Your Honor, I'm not sure why an objection wasn't made. Having seen it as soon as it was on the screen, Ms. Truitt was actually I don't want to say a slow reader, but as it wasn't her handwriting, she was reading slowly. And I know I was able to read ahead before  more quickly. The Court: I did not read it. I don't know what else is in there. Does he confess to another crime in there or anything? [Defense Attorney # 1]: Well, Your Honor, it indicates that  The Court: Is he the one that was alleged to have done the shooting? [Defense Attorney # 1]: It says that his sister and mom told on him and that they didn't show up for court. The Court: Right. [Defense Attorney # 1]: And so at any rate, Your Honor, I certainly would have  should have told the State in advance that I wanted that redacted and removed. The Court: Well, it will be now. And if you wish a curative instruction, draft one up. I don't know that I want to draw any more attention to it when the defense didn't object at the time. I thought  I think at that time there should have been a curative instruction if at any time, but, you know, it's possible the jury thought, Oh, we're not going to see it again and will not recall it. I don't know. [Defense Attorney # 1]: Well, Your Honor, I'll discuss it with Defense Attorney # 2 and prepare a draft instruction if we choose to present one. The Court: Very well. Mr. [Defense Attorney # 2]? [Defense Attorney # 2]: Your Honor, my view is somewhat different than [Defense Attorney # 1]. The Court: Well, why don't you two talk and tell me what you decide together rather than have you disagree on the record. Okay? And you can let me know tomorrow morning. [Defense Attorney #2]: No, I thought we  we do not have a disagreement, Your Honor. The Court: Okay. That's good news. [Defense Attorney #2]: We do not wish the item  we do not wish a curative instruction, but we would like to have the  The Court: Well, why don't you go through the other letters and make sure there's nothing else you want redacted? Okay? [Defense Attorney #2]: Okay. No problem. The State introduced the letter as evidence of Johnson's efforts to influence Truitt's testimony, to demonstrate Johnson's conscious guilt. [74] There was neither an in limine request regarding the letter's content nor a contemporaneous defense objection to Truitt's reading of the passage that is now the subject of this claim on appeal. There was also never a request for a mistrial and the trial judge's offer of a curative instruction was specifically rejected by Johnson's defense attorneys. It was not until the State expressed its concern to the trial judge the following day that this passage in the April 25th letter was addressed. The State was concerned that there could be some misunderstanding by the jury of the partial passage read by Truitt. The State suggested redaction and any remedial measure requested by the defense. Defense counsel told the trial judge that he had discussed the issue with the prosecutor the prior day. Johnson's attorney rejected the offer of a curative instruction and agreed to the redaction suggested by the State. Consequently, a redacted version of the letter was entered into evidence during the guilt phase. On appeal, for the first time, Johnson argues that the trial judge should have, notwithstanding trial counsel's specific request to the contrary, issued a curative instruction regarding the single line of the April 25th letter. Johnson now contends that the trial judge reversibly erred by failing to instruct the jury that the information pointing to Johnson's prior shooting of his stepfather should be stricken from their notes. Unlike his position in the Superior Court, Johnson argues to this Court that without a curative instruction from the trial judge to strike that information from their notes, Johnson's violent, criminal disposition was confirmed to the jury and he lost the benefit of the presumption of innocence. Since this claim was not raised in the Superior Court, it is reviewed for plain error. [75] Once again, we note that plain error assumes oversight. [76] The record reflects there was no oversight. The issue of the admission of this letter, its content, and the reading of this line was addressed at trial. In fact, it was the State that first raised the concern that the contents might be misinterpreted to Johnson's detriment and therefore suggested redaction. Johnson had every opportunity at trial to raise the argument he now makes on appeal. Johnson could have asked, as he does now, that the jurors be advised to strike from their notes any reference to the shooting of Johnson's stepfather. Instead, Johnson's attorneys declined the trial judge's offer to give a curative instruction on the matter and agreed to a redaction. Thus, Johnson not only failed to make a request for such an instruction but also rejected the trial judge's offer to draft any curative instruction for the jury. Therefore, Johnson's claim of error has been waived. [77]