Opinion ID: 2155815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony by Edward Byrd

Text: Ratcliffe argues that two portions of the testimony by State's witness Edward Byrd prejudiced the jury, making it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. First, during direct examination the trial court allowed Byrd to testify, over the defendant's objection, that he had previously seen Ratcliffe carrying the knife he used to stab Phillips. Whether this testimony was properly admitted is a question of relevance. Evidence is relevant when its admission renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. Cambridge v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 1252, 1256 (quoting Pirtle v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 16, 34, 323 N.E.2d 634, 643). Evidence tending to prove a material fact is admissible, even though its tendency in that direction may be exceedingly slight. The knife in question was not recovered directly from Ratcliffe. The prosecutor had the burden of connecting the knife to Ratcliffe and the crime. Byrd's testimony made the inference that the knife belonged to Ratcliffe more probable. The testimony was relevant and properly admitted. Ratcliffe also asserts error in overruling his objection to part of Byrd's testimony on re-direct examination: Q. Mr. White asked you something like had you ever seen him go off like that and you said, No.. You remember that? A. Yes. Q. What do you mean by that? I'm not sure I understood your answer. A. I had never seen T [Ratcliffe] act that way before. I've seen him fight and get made [sic] but I've never seen him act that way before. Q. In what way did you have reference to? A. I've never seen him act that crazy. Usually he after he fights somebody he quits. MR. WHITE: OBJECTION. PROSECUTOR: They asked the question. BY THE COURT: OVERRULED. A. Usually when he fights after he has done beatin' 'em up I never seen him stab anybody or anything. Q. Usually he just beats them up and leaves them there? A. Yes. Q. How many times have you seen that? A. Twice. MR. WHITE: Show that my OBJECTION be a continuing objection. It is not relevant. BY THE COURT: OVERRULED. Record at 284. The scope of re-direct examination is limited to answering any new matter drawn out during cross-examination. Kimble v. State (1983), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 302. Once a defendant inquires into a subject on cross-examination, the State is entitled on re-direct examination to ask further questions about that subject to avoid a false or misleading impression. Id. While cross-examining Byrd about the fight between Ratcliffe and Phillips, defense counsel asked, You never seen T [Ratcliffe] react like that before did you? Byrd answered, No. Defense counsel's question opened the door on the subject of Ratcliffe's prior behavior entitling the prosecutor to inquire further into the area on re-direct. Byrd's testimony on re-direct was admissible.