Opinion ID: 1439775
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mindombe's attempts to impeach J.M.'s testimony by Omission

Text: Mindombe also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by preventing him to impeach J.M's testimony by omission. On three occasions, during the second trial, defense counsel attempted to impeach by omission J.M.'s testimony with her prior testimony in the first trial. In each instance, the trial court sustained objections to the attempted impeachment on the ground that the question posed in the first trial was so different than the question presented in the second trial, that it would not have been natural for J.M. to have mentioned at the first trial the additional details brought out at the second trial. As aforestated, the scope and extent of cross-examination of a witness is committed to the sound discretion of the court. Singletary, 383 A.2d at 1073. Specifically, with respect to impeachment, this court has used a three-part test to determine whether an omission is admissible for impeachment purposes. See Hill v. United States, 404 A.2d 525, 531 (D.C.1979). (1) the prior statement should purport to address the facts surrounding the omission of the alleged offense; (2) the proponent must apprise the trial court of the omitted facts to be relied upon as showing inconsistency; and (3) the trial court must consider whether such facts are sufficiently material that the failure to mention them amounts to inconsistency. Id. In these cases, the trial court is asked to simply decide whether the prior statement fail[ed] to mention a material circumstance presently testified to, which it would have been natural to mention in the prior statement. . . . Sampson v. United States, 407 A.2d 574, 576 (D.C.1976). Two of the circumstances involved J.M.'s response at the first trial to a question about whether Mindombe had done anything to her at the Rock Creek Ford Road apartment that made her sad or hurt her. Mindombe claims that her testimony in the second trial that she was abused sexually in the bathtub of the Rock Creek Ford Road apartment was a material omission because she failed to mention the bathtub incident in the first trial in response to the aforementioned question. Mindombe argues that J.M.'s failure to mention the bathtub incident in the first trial amounted to an inconsistency that he should be able to use to attack J.M.'s credibility in the second trial. Similarly Mindombe claims that J.M.'s testimony in the second trial that her father gave her rides on his back into his bedroom before abusing her was a material fact that amounted to an inconsistency because she failed to mention it in response to the question about whether Mindombe did something to [J.M.] at the Rock Creek Ford apartment that made her sad or hurt her. With respect to the latter claim, the trial court ruled and we agree that J.M.'s testimony about being given a ride on her father's back would not have been an appropriate response to the several questions posed by Mindombe in the first trial. Because there was no indication in the second trial that J.M. was either hurt or saddened by her father giving her a piggy back ride to the bedroom, the trial court did not err in finding that J.M.'s prior testimony did not omit a material fact that would have been natural for J.M. to have mentioned. As for Mindombe's contention that J.M.'s failure to mention the bathtub incident in the first trial amounted to an inconsistency he should have been allowed to exploit in the second trial, the trial court reached a similar conclusion. Because the question posed in the first trial concerned Mindombe's abuse of J.M. when she would visit him after the family split up, and J.M.'s testimony about the bathtub incident was that it occurred while the family was still living together at the Rock Creek Ford apartment, the trial court's finding that the omission failed to meet the sufficiency test was not an abuse of discretion. Finally defense counsel attempted to impeach J.M.'s testimony in the second trial that a spirit moved her to tell her mother about the abuse. Defense counsel argued that her omission of that testimony at the first trial in response to a question about why she did not tell her mother or anyone else about the abuse amounted to an inconsistent prior statement. At the second trial, however, J.M. was asked what caused her to choose [a] particular day to tell her mother; whereas at the first trial she was simply asked why she did not tell her mother. Clearly, the question posed to J.M. at the first trial did not naturally call for her statement in the prior trial that the spirit moved her on that particular morning to tell her mother. See Hill, 404 A.2d at 531; Sampson, 407 A.2d at 576-77. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the defense from impeaching J.M.'s testimony by omission with statements that would not have been a natural response to the questions asked of her in the first trial.