Opinion ID: 2515784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Spring J.'s Statement to Michael De Anda

Text: As stated, Michael De Anda testified for codefendant Spradlin. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked De Anda: During the ride home from 1604 North Hayes to the trailer park, did Spring [] tell you in so many words that she had stripped and willingly engaged in a sexual act with multiple participants at the party? Defendant objected the question lacked foundation and assumed a fact not in evidence. The trial court overruled the objection, and De Anda answered: I stated that while I was taking her home she was mumbling about  something about she  this was like the other night and something to that effect that her friend Crissell or Jissell or something, they were at a party and they were doing that. The prosecutor next asked: Did she say something to the effect, sir, she said it was like the other night and some guys had paid her to strip or something, more than one person? De Anda answered: That's basically what I said, without the part about payment. She never told me anything about payment, I don't believe. When the prosecutor attempted to continue this line of questioning, Richard objected on grounds of hearsay and relevance. Out of the presence of the jury, the parties and the trial court discussed at length the relevance of this testimony. Also out of the presence of the jury, the parties questioned De Anda on Spring's exact statement to him. The court found the prosecutor's line of questioning relevant to De Anda's credibility and ultimately overruled Richard's objection. [51] In the presence of the jury, the prosecutor asked De Anda: [D]id Spring [] basically tell you that tonight she had stripped for money and willingly engaged in group sex? De Anda replied: Yes. Later, testifying for defendant, Spring denied making such a statement. Defendant now contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting De Anda's testimony that Spring told him she had stripped for money and willingly engaged in group sex. He argues such testimony was collateral in nature, distorted De Anda's original testimony on the issue, and unfairly depicted De Anda as absurd for insinuating that Spring was not raped. We see no abuse of discretion, for De Anda's testimony on this subject was relevant to his credibility.