Opinion ID: 6108592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Officer's Statement

Text: For the final point on appeal, Hill argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Hill an opportunity to cross-examine Officer Woodward with a prior inconsistent statement. Woodward testified that he did not attempt to obtain a DNA sample from the shotgun, yet he allegedly made a prior statement to Wright that police officers had obtained DNA from the shotgun and that it would prove whether Hill had handled the shotgun. Hill claims that he should have been allowed to cross-examine Woodward with the prior inconsistent statement that he had obtained a DNA sample from the shotgun. The State responds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by limiting such impeachment evidence arising from the investigating officer's efforts to induce an admission by a witness. The State also contends that Hill cannot show prejudice from such a limitation. The relevant facts are as follows. At trial, on cross-examination, Woodward admitted that he had not taken a DNA sample from the shotgun. Defense counsel stated, [T]hat's not what you told Stacy Wright when you took her interview; is  it? The State objected, and the circuit court sustained the objection. On redirect examination, the officer testified that DNA on the firearm is what we call touch DNA.... [I]t's left behind by skin cells, dead skin cells. That's different from DNA that's contained in blood. Woodward stated that, based on his experience, he had very very little success with touch DNA. Defense counsel moved to impeach Woodward with a prior inconsistent statement that the officer made to Wright during the investigation when he stated that officers had obtained DNA on the shotgun. The circuit court denied Hill's motion to use the prior inconsistent statement to impeach the officer, stating, I think that he's testified he didn't find any of that. If [Wright] wants to try to testify to that, that'd be up [to] her, but we're not going to go into that with him. When Wright testified, she discussed her conversation with Woodward. During direct examination, the following colloquy occurred: STATE : You responded to Detective Woodward on a question concerning DNA on the shotgun. Do you recall what that was? WRIGHT : Yes. STATE : And what was it? WRIGHT : It was just, Good. That'll prove that there wasn't-he wasn't-had-that he didn't have a gun. We conclude that Hill's argument lacks merit. The jury heard Woodward's alleged inconsistent statement through Wright's testimony. This court has stated that a defendant cannot complain about receiving the relief he or she requested. See, e.g. , Wyles v. State , 357 Ark. 530 , 182 S.W.3d 142 (2004). For this reason, we affirm the circuit court's ruling on this point.