Opinion ID: 1855450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: statement by trial court

Text: Price argues that the trial judge erred when he answered a question directed at a witness during cross-examination by defense counsel. During cross-examination, Badgett was asked if he knew whether his testimony would determine what his sentence would be. Badgett responded no. The judge stated: I can assureThat question's improper. I can assure you he does not know. Nobody knows. I don't even know. Price's counsel requested a mistrial, arguing that the judge's response to the question had improperly tainted the jury. The request for a mistrial was overruled. In his brief, Price argues that the judge's comments in the presence of the jury were clearly prejudicial and invaded the province of the jury by interposing an opinion and answering a question directed toward a witness. In State v. Rodriguez, 244 Neb. 707, 709, 509 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1993), this court found prejudicial error when the trial judge, in response to defense counsel's claim that a police officer sitting at the prosecution table was coaching a testifying witness, stated: `No, he wasn't. I was watching him.' We held that an appellate court must examine the particular circumstances of the case to determine whether the judge's behavior was so prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party as to merit a reversal. In Rodriguez, the witness' credibility was crucial. He was the only witness who could connect Rodriguez to the crime. Cross-examination of the witness was essential to discredit him. During cross-examination, the defense claimed that the police officer was coaching the witness. The judge flatly stated that no coaching had occurred. We found under these circumstances that the judge's comments had prejudiced Rodriguez' case because the comments bolstered the credibility of the prosecution's only witness. In the present case, however, the judge's statement did nothing to enhance the credibility of Badgett as a witness. Badgett had made a deal regarding his sentence in exchange for his testimony. He testified that he did not know whether his testimony would determine what his sentence would be, and the judge concluded that such a question was improper. Further comment by the judge was unnecessary and should not have been made, but under these circumstances, such comments were clearly not prejudicial to Price. The court was merely stating that this was a matter for the court to decide.