Opinion ID: 1201575
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detective Chambers' testimony

Text: Defendant next contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial after a police detective revealed that Defendant had previously been imprisoned. At trial, Detective Chambers testified extensively to his post-arrest examination of Defendant. During cross-examination, the following exchange occurred: Q. [Defendant's attorney]: And during [the] hour and a half [interview], did you discuss all of the things that you've talked about today, or were other things discussed but just weren't important enough to write down? A. [Chambers]: I'm sure we discussed other things that aren't in the report. Q. [Defendant's attorney]: What other things would you have discussed? A. [Chambers]: Well, I recall we discussed, or attempted to discuss his having been in prison. He would confirm that he had. R.T., May 22, 1990, at 39-40 (emphasis added). Immediately following this colloquy, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. Although admitting the question was close, the judge denied Defendant's motion, commenting in a side-bar conference that [y]ou did ask that question and he gave the answer to it.
The state properly concedes that evidence of Defendant's prior criminal record was inadmissible in this case where Defendant did not testify. State v. Bailey, 160 Ariz. 277, 280, 772 P.2d 1130, 1133 (1989). The state argues, however, that defense counsel's questions invited any error. The invited error doctrine applies to situations `where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal.' State v. Woods, 141 Ariz. 446, 455, 687 P.2d 1201, 1210 (1984) (quoting Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 103, 677 P.2d 261, 266 (1984)). The doctrine prevents a defendant from introducing forbidden evidence and then seeking reversal based on its erroneous introduction. We have so held on numerous occasions. See, e.g., State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 52, 821 P.2d 731, 743 (1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 137, 121 L.Ed.2d 90 (1992); State v. Stoneman, 115 Ariz. 594, 596, 566 P.2d 1340, 1342 (1977). To hold otherwise would allow defendants to avoid conviction simply by eliciting inadmissible testimony. Cf. State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318, 320, 487 P.2d 385, 387 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 1781, 32 L.Ed.2d 121 (1972). While neither side in this case purposefully interjected inadmissible testimony, we believe that responsibility for its introduction lies with defense counsel. Defense counsel knew that Chambers learned of Defendant's criminal record during his post-arrest interview. At a pre-trial voluntariness hearing, the prosecutor questioned Chambers about this issue in the presence of defense counsel: Q. [the prosecutor]: At the time you were interviewing the defendant, had you been made aware of whether or not he had an arrest history?       A. [Chambers]: He told me himself of being in prison in California and Arizona, but he refused to discuss details of that with me. R.T., May 11, 1990, at 49 (emphasis added). Given this pre-trial testimony, defense counsel's question squarely and directly invited Chambers to reiterate his prior testimony. Defendant makes much of Detective Chambers' extensive experience and argues that any culpability lies with Chambers because he should have known that his response was inadmissible. It is true that an experienced police officer should understand that such testimony is generally prohibited and, in any event, ought to be so admonished before testifying. See, e.g., State v. Brewer, 110 Ariz. 12, 15-16, 514 P.2d 1008, 1011-12 (1973). It is equally true, however, that an able lawyer conducting cross-examination can usually avoid the injection of known inadmissible testimony by using narrow, leading questions. See Ariz.R.Evid. 611(c). Chambers did not volunteer the unwanted testimony. The broad question posed to him specifically called for the response now challenged. See State v. Fish, 109 Ariz. 219, 220, 508 P.2d 49, 50 (1973); State v. Maggard, 104 Ariz. 462, 465, 455 P.2d 259, 262 (1969). In light of Chambers' previous testimony and the question's broad nature, we find any error invited.
When defense counsel unintentionally invites error, the error must be fundamental before relief will be granted. State v. Libberton, 141 Ariz. 132, 138, 685 P.2d 1284, 1290 (1984). [6] We have described fundamental error as error going to the foundation of the case or that which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and as error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have had a fair trial. Id. (citations omitted). The trial court possesses broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a mistrial, and failure to do so is error only if it was a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Koch, 138 Ariz. 99, 101, 673 P.2d 297, 299 (1983) (citing cases). In deciding whether a mistrial is required the trial court should consider: (1) whether the remarks called to the attention of the jurors matters that they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict, and (2) the probability that the jurors, under the circumstances of the particular case, were influenced by the remarks. State v. Hallman, 137 Ariz. 31, 37, 668 P.2d 874, 880 (1983), cited and relied on in Bailey, 160 Ariz. at 279, 772 P.2d at 1132. Here the jury could not properly consider Chambers' comment; therefore, the first prong of Hallman/Bailey is satisfied. Under the second prong, we must determine whether, in the context of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the jury was not so influenced by Chambers' comment that Defendant was denied a fair trial. See Bailey, 160 Ariz. at 280, 772 P.2d at 1133. The comment was one short remark at the trial's very end. Defense counsel tactfully, and without objecting in front of the jury, asked for a side-bar conference to voice his concerns and preserve his objection. The attention focused on the comment was therefore minimized, and no one made any further mention of Defendant's criminal record to the jury. Nor did the jury learn of the reasons for Defendant's prior imprisonment or its duration. See Bailey, 160 Ariz. at 280, 772 P.2d at 1133. Moreover, the following day the judge instructed the jury: I'd like to give you one instruction, it is not part of the instructions that I will read to you at the end of the case, its as follows: Detective Chambers' testimony concerning matters not contained in his report is stricken from the record. You are to disregard such evidence and not discuss it in your deliberations. R.T., May 23, 1990, at 4-5. The judge also later instructed that stricken testimony was not to be considered and that jurors should not be concerned with the reasons for such a decision. Given the fleeting mention of the inadmissible matter, we believe the judge's instructions mitigated any potential prejudice. See State v. Correll, 148 Ariz. 468, 477, 715 P.2d 721, 730 (1986). In light of these factors, we cannot say that any prejudice was so great that the inadvertent admission of this evidence amounted to fundamental error.