Opinion ID: 1788650
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO A MISTRIAL WHEN THE STATE ELICITED TESTIMONY FROM THE WITNESS SHERIFF McKENZIE PREVIOUSLY EXCLUDED BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

Text: This issue raises questions of great concern. Even though the judge showed no partiality in front of the jury, the record does not make this Court confident that the trial judge in the instant case was in fact unbiased. Furthermore, the Sheriff's testimony was elicited originally by the Court, through a leading question. The sheriff, apparently led also by the long discussion made in front of him, concerning his testimony, knew beforehand what he should say in order to aid the state. Because of the borderline manipulation and leading of the witness on the part of the trial judge, this Court is lead to suspect that the trial judge was biased, thereby denying Scotti and Terry their right to a fair trial. However, this occurred outside the jury's presence, and this supposed bias appears only in the portion of the record where the pre-trial order is discussed. In no way was the jury potentially led to believe that there were substantial amounts of marijuana burned. Also, the amount admitted without objection, 7.7 kilograms, about 17 lbs., sounds significantly more than the very little as the sheriff and other officers testified. Also, the initial question objected to did not disclose an amount, just that some marijuana was left on the ground after picking up as much of it as they could. It seems that no harm was done and that the purpose for which Scotti and Terry moved for this exclusion has been fully served: the jury was not presented with even a suggestion that the amount of marijuana left and burned was any amount of any consequence, especially in comparison to the 7.7 kilograms (17 lbs.) introduced through other testimony. At the time of the initial objection, the most the sheriff said was that they did not pick up all the marijuana which spilled out of the bag. He then testified that what they did not pick up was a miniscule amount. The jury was told, without objection, that the officers had to sweep or rake up some that had spilled out. It seems reasonable that, just by the nature of sweeping/raking, that every bit could not be entirely picked up from the ground. The harm caused by this mistake does not touch upon the substantive merits of the case. Therefore, as to the conviction before this Court on appeal, we find no merit in this assignment of error. We also critique the original pre-trial order itself. Though this pre-trial order helped the defense strategy, such evidence would have been admissible. The simple fact that probative evidence is prejudicial does not make it inadmissible. The prejudicial effect must substantially outweigh the probative value in order to render it inadmissible. M.R.E. 403. It is also notable that one reason for Scotti's and Terry's motion in limine was that such testimony would unfairly bolster the charge of intent to transfer. Since they were convicted of possession without the intent to transfer, it appears as though no harm was caused. Because we cannot see how the conviction of possession of over one kilogram was related to this testimony, even if error, it would be harmless. Nevertheless, the judge's actions were inappropriate, and we must quote the record to warn of the consequences of manipulation of a trial. See the Addendum to this opinion.