Opinion ID: 835810
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: striking defendant's testimony

Text: Defendant testified during the guilt phase of the trial. Much of his testimony repeated, in greater detail, evidence that already was in the record. Defendant testified concerning his drug use in prison, recounted his confrontations with Davis, and described how Davis had taken the sunglasses from him at knife point. He testified that, as a result of Davis's actions, he feared him. [7] Defendant also testified concerning the events surrounding the stabbing. He testified that the Lakota Club had not given him the shank. He explained that he had torn a metal bar out of a cart and that a guy that works out in [the prison] industries    took it out and sharpened it, brought it back to me the very next day. Defendant also explained that, if he had wanted to harm Davis, he would not have gone to the Lakota Club for help. He denied that either Graham or the Lakota Club had given him anything in exchange for attacking Davis. Finally, when asked whether he had intended to kill Davis, defendant testified, No way, no way, never. I wanted to hurt the guy and I wanted the wormI wanted the wound to be serious and noticeable, but I didn't want that wound to be fatal. During cross-examination, a question arose concerning defendant's other crimes. The trial court excused the jury, and the state asked defendant a series of questions. Outside the presence of the jury, defendant answered some of the state's questions. He refused, however, to answer three questions. He refused to identify the person who, he testified, had helped him make the weapon that he used to stab Davis. He refused to identify the persons to whom he sold drugs in the prison, and he refused to identify the persons who supplied him with those drugs. The trial court advised defense counsel that, if [defendant] refuses to answer the questions on cross-examination, then his testimony will be stricken. The court added, I don't know if you want to talk to him, but that's the rule. The trial court gave defense counsel an opportunity to speak privately with their client. The court then confirmed that defendant understood that, if he refused to answer the three questions, the court would strike his testimony. After the court had clarified defendant's position, one of defendant's counsel noted that there is another issue which arises, and that is whether striking all of the testimony is the appropriate remedy. Counsel directed the court's attention to a Court of Appeals case and explained that the decision whether to strike all of defendant's testimony rests with the discretion of the court. Having considered defense counsel's arguments, the trial court advised counsel that it was going to tell the jury that it was striking defendant's testimony but, if defendant changed his position over the weekend, to let the court know. The court then called the jury in and told them: The State is unable to cross-examine the defendant on all of his direct testimony; therefore, the defendant's entire testimony is stricken. You're not to consider it in your deliberations at all. After the court gave the jury that instruction, it excused them for the weekend, and defendant moved for a mistrial because the remedy employed by this court in striking all of the defendant's testimony is greater than that which would be necessary to redress the harm addressed by the state's inability to cross-examine him on the particular points that were made. The court denied the motion. When the trial resumed, the trial court returned to its decision to strike defendant's testimony. The court explained to the parties that it had reviewed the case that defense counsel had provided regarding the court's options, which was striking the defendant's [witness's] testimony, and although thethat case discussed that you could maybe parcel out, you know, some parts of the testimony, in that particular case the court struck [all of] the defendant's witness['s] testimony. The court explained that, having reviewed the case and reconsidered the issue, it adhered to its ruling striking defendant's testimony. Defendant raises three issues on review. First, he argues that the trial court erroneously believed that, once he refused to answer the state's questions on cross-examination, the court's only option was to strike his testimony. Second, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion because striking his testimony was not necessary to remedy the harm caused by his refusal to answer the questions. Finally, defendant argues that striking his testimony was arbitrary and disproportionate under the federal constitution. We begin with defendant's subconstitutional arguments. Defendant argues initially that the trial court failed to recognize that it had discretion either to strike his testimony or impose a less onerous remedy when he refused to answer the state's questions. He contends that the trial court's decision rests on a misapprehension of the law. See State v. Rogers, 330 Or. 282, 310-11, 4 P.3d 1261 (2000) (addressing comparable problem). The premise of defendant's argument is correct. In Oregon, trial courts have broad discretion to control the order and presentation of evidence. See OEC 611 (stating that courts shall exercise reasonable control over order and presentation of evidence); Rogers, 330 Or. at 300, 4 P.3d 1261 (recognizing that principle). That includes the discretion to strike the testimony of a witness who refuses to answer questions on cross-examination or to impose a less onerous sanction when appropriate. See State v. Mende, 304 Or. 18, 21, 741 P.2d 496 (1987) (holding that, although not required to do so, trial court had discretion to strike defendant's affidavit when he refused to submit to cross-examination). Although defendant's premise is correct, he errs in asserting that the trial court misperceived the scope of its authority. The trial court expressly recognized that it either could strike defendant's testimony or impose a lesser sanction, if appropriate, to cure defendant's refusal to answer questions on cross-examination. Although the trial court's initial remarks might have suggested a different understanding, the court's later statements reveal that it correctly understood the scope of its authority. Defendant advances a second argument. He contends that only one of the questions that he refused to answer went to the merits of his testimony and that two of the questions concerning drugs were merely collateral. In defendant's view, his failure to answer those questions did not prejudice the state in a way that would warrant striking all of his testimony. The state responds that defendant did not preserve the question whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction and that, if he did, the trial court acted within its discretion in assessing the effect of defendant's refusal to answer on the state's right to test defendant's testimony on cross-examination. We begin with the state's preservation argument. See State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335, 15 P.3d 22 (2000) (considering preservation first). In Wyatt, the court explained that a party's failure to object to the particular sanction imposed by the judge or, in the alternative, to argue for some other sanction, fails to preserve a claim on appeal that the judge erred in failing to consider the availability of a less onerous sanction. 331 Or. at 343, 15 P.3d 22 (footnote omitted). Here, defendant objected to the particular sanction that the trial court imposed. Although defendant did not propose lesser sanctions, Wyatt does not require that he do so to preserve the issue. We accordingly turn to the merits of defendant's second argument. The court has held that, when a witness's death during a civil trial prevented the opposing party from cross-examining her, the trial court could either strike the witness's direct testimony or declare a mistrial. Best v. Tavenner, 189 Or. 46, 54, 218 P.2d 471 (1950). More recently, the court has recognized that, although not required to do so, a trial court may strike a criminal defendant's testimony who refuses to submit to cross-examination. Mende, 304 Or. at 21, 741 P.2d 496. The court has not had occasion until now to identify the principles that should guide a court's discretion when a party refuses to answer only some cross-examination questions. We turn to that question. A criminal defendant has both a statutory and a constitutional right to testify in his or her own defense. See ORS 136.643 (statutory right); [8] State v. Lotches, 331 Or. 455, 483 n. 10, 17 P.3d 1045 (2000), cert. den., 534 U.S. 833, 122 S.Ct. 82, 151 L.Ed.2d 45 (2001) (recognizing defendants' state and federal constitutional rights to testify). [9] As the court has recognized, however, a criminal defendant's right to testify is subject to the state's right to cross-examine him or her. See Mende, 304 Or. at 21, 741 P.2d 496. ORS 136.643 expressly conditions the defendant's right to testify on the state's right of cross-examination, and defendant does not argue that either the state or federal constitution prohibits the legislature from imposing that condition. Such an argument would be difficult to mount. See Rogers, 330 Or. at 301-02, 4 P.3d 1261 (recognizing that rights under Article I, section 11, are subject to reasonable limitations); Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154-56, 78 S.Ct. 622, 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958) (recognizing that criminal defendant's right to testify is subject to cross-examination). For two centuries past, the policy of the Anglo-American system of evidence has been to regard the necessity of testing by cross-examination as a vital feature of the law. John Henry Wigmore, 5 Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1367, at 32 (Chadbourn rev 1974). As this court has explained, [i]t is axiomatic that a party against whom a witness is called has the right to cross-examine the latter. Best, 189 Or. at 53, 218 P.2d 471. And the United States Supreme Court has stated that a criminal defendant has no right to set forth to the jury all the facts which tend in his favor without laying himself open to a cross-examination upon those facts. Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U.S. 304, 315, 20 S.Ct. 944, 44 L.Ed. 1078 (1900). These decisions, as well as ORS 136.643, reflect the considered judgment that no safeguard for testing the value of human statements is comparable to that furnished by cross-examination, and the conviction that no statement (unless by special exception) should be used as testimony until it has been probed and sublimated by that test. Wigmore, 5 Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1367 at 32. It follows that, when a witness refuses to submit to any cross-examination or to answer cross-examination questions necessary to test the witness's direct testimony, that refusal undermines the trier of fact's ability to rely on the witness's direct testimony. In those circumstances, the courts generally have recognized that a trial court may strike the witness's testimony. See John W. Strong, 1 McCormick on Evidence § 19 at 88 (5th ed 1999) (summarizing cases). Not every refusal to answer a question on cross-examination undermines the reliability of the evidence, and some courts have held that, when a witness refuses to answer cross-examination questions which are logically relevant only to the witness's credibility and otherwise immaterial, the direct testimony should not be stricken or    at the least the judge ought to have a measure of discretion in ruling on that matter. See id. at 89 (summarizing cases). The decision in United States v. Cardillo, 316 F.2d 606 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 375 U.S. 822, 84 S.Ct. 60 and 375 U.S. 857, 84 S.Ct. 123, 11 L.Ed.2d 84 (1963), which we find persuasive, illustrates those principles. In Cardillo, two members of a conspiracy to sell stolen goods testified for the government against their coconspirators. The defendants cross-examined one witness by asking whether he had committed other crimes in the past and whether he was guilty of certain crimes with which he was then charged in the state courts. Id. The witness invoked his right against self-incrimination, and the Second Circuit held that the trial court correctly declined to strike the witness's direct testimony. Id. It reasoned that the questions related solely to the witness's credibility and had no relation to the subject matter of his direct examination. Id. The court reached a different conclusion when another government witness refused to answer a cross-examination question that related to the subject matter of his testimony. That witness testified that he gave $5,000 to the defendants so that they could buy the stolen property. Cardillo, 316 F.2d at 612. When asked where he had obtained the money, the witness replied that he had borrowed it from a friend. Id. When the defendants asked the witness on cross-examination to name the friend, the witness refused to answer. Id. The defendants argued that, if the witness had named his friend and if they could prove that the witness had not borrowed the money from that person, they could impeach the witness's testimony. Id. In explaining why the refusal to answer this cross-examination question warranted striking the witness's direct testimony, the court reasoned: [D]espite the original claim that [the witness's] proposed cross-examination related to `credibility,' it was not the type of testimony that would have developed the general unsavory character of the witness as might questions dealing with prior convictions. The answers solicited might have established untruthfulness with respect to specific events of the crime charged. It is in this field that the decisions appear to call for the striking of testimony. Cardillo, 316 F.2d at at 613. As the court explained, the financial transaction [that the defendants had sought to inquire about on cross-examination] was not collateral but directly related to [the defendants'] participation in the conspiracy. Id. at 612. In those circumstances, the court held that the trial court should have stricken the direct testimony. Id. at 613. Applying those principles, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking defendant's testimony. Defendant's refusal to identify the person whom he claimed had sharpened the metal rod for him bore directly on his intentthe primary issue in the guilt phase. The state had presented evidence that the Lakota Club had made and given defendant a shank, in addition to tobacco and heroin, to kill Davis. Defendant testified that the Lakota Club had nothing to do with the homicide, that the club had not given him the shank, and that another inmate had helped him make it. If defendant had identified the inmate who, he testified, had helped him make the shank, the state could have tested the truthfulness of defendant's claim that he had not stabbed Davis pursuant to any agreement to kill him. The other two questions that defendant refused to answer also bore on his intent. One of the members of the Lakota Club had testified that, in return for defendant's agreement to kill Davis, the club and Graham had given defendant tobacco and heroin two to three weeks in advance of the homicide so that defendant could get high, smoke cigarettes, sell some heroin and raise some money before the stabbing. Defendant, however, refused to identify who bought drugs from him and who supplied the drugs he sold. Defendant also denied receiving tobacco and heroin from the Lakota Club or Graham. If defendant had answered the questions that the state posed to him on cross-examination, the state would have been able to test, either as a result of the timing of his drug sales or by questioning the suppliers he identified, whether defendant truthfully denied receiving any heroin or tobacco from Graham and the Lakota Club. Put another way, defendant's refusal to answer denied the state the opportunity to test his claim that he had no connection to any agreement to kill Davis. Defendant refused to answer those questions knowing the consequences of his decision. He did not object to the questions at trial; the state's questions related directly to the events of the charged crime; and the answers to those questions were necessary to a complete cross-examination. Defendant's refusal to answer prejudiced the state's ability to test the details of his direct testimony, and the trial court acted within its discretion in striking his testimony. [10] Finally, citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987), defendant argues that striking his testimony violated due process. [11] In support of that claim, defendant notes that the state did not ask other inmate witnesses to name the persons who used drugs in prison. He also notes that the state did not seek to strike the testimony of three inmate witnesses who testified that, if asked, they would not identify who traded contraband in the prison. Defendant reasons that the trial court arbitrarily treated him differently from other witnesses in violation of due process. The initial problem with defendant's constitutional argument is its premisethat the state arbitrarily treated him differently from other witnesses. As noted, the state asked defendant about the persons to whom he sold drugs and the persons who supplied him with drugs to test his claim that he had received no heroin or tobacco from Graham and the Lakota Club in exchange for killing Davis. The state had no reason to ask other inmates who testified about that issue. There was no evidence (or suggestion) that those witnesses had received drugs from Graham or the Lakota Club as part of an agreement to kill Davis. Although the state asked defendant different questions than it asked the other witnesses, its decision to do so was reasonable. Because the premise of defendant's claim fails, so does the claim. [12]