Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Questioning by Bond's counsel regarding guilty plea

Text: Defendant Bond pled guilty in federal court on November 4, 1998, to the robbery of James Day. Mr. Day subsequently testified about the robbery on November 9, 1998. At trial, Defendant Thomas was concerned that the evidence of the two dates would lead to the inference that, as of November 9, 1998, the [federal] proceeding went forward against [Defendant] Thomas without [Defendant] Bond. Following argument by defense counsel, the trial court found, So long as you  as long as [it] is indicated to the jury; that up until November the 4, [Bond] was, indeed, a party to the [federal] proceeding. At that time he entered a guilty plea to these events. And so at the time that Mr. Day testified on November the 9th, in light of the fact that [Bond] entered a guilty plea to these very events five days earlier, he was not, at that time, an actual party to the proceedings. With reference to an objection lodged by Defendant Thomas that this ruling gives the indication that they were together in that proceeding and that [Defendant Bond] was able to plead guilty and that [Defendant Thomas] possibly disputed something, the trial court further found: First of all, the fact that the transcript contains references to the jury and even the court, I can only say that we made an effort ... to avoid referring to the previous proceeding as a trial or what the outcome might have been, who the actual parties were, what the sentence might have been that these men received. The references to jury and court in the transcript ... could have been addressed and could have been deleted. The entry of this testimony comes as no surprise to anyone in this courtroom. You all have had, of course, the transcript for years now, and we addressed the issue of the state's desire to enter Mr. Day's testimony.... So there's been time for you all to review and request that those matters  those references be deleted had you felt ... that it was unduly prejudicial to leave them in. I don't think it's as prejudicial for them to have been in because we're still not referring to precisely what the proceedings [were], what the results were, or anything of that sort.... With regard to what [Defendant Bond] is asking to be allowed to ask, it's already in the record at this point.... Mr. Arvin has already testified to the date on which Mr. Bond entered his guilty plea to these events, not to a specific trial that was about to begin.... He's entered a guilty plea ... on the 4th of November ... and that Mr. Day's testimony ... occurred on the 9th of November. ... And so, ... he's asking to ... re-ask what's already in the record and already before the jury ... and I don't know that there is any real prejudice to your client. The trial court then limited the manner in which Defendant Bond could make inquiry as to Defendant Bond's status in the proceeding at the time of Mr. Day's testimony. Again, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling on this matter. Defendant Thomas is not entitled to relief as to these claims.