Opinion ID: 1621756
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Are they lying? Questions

Text: Dobbins next argues that the state improperly asked a series of Are they lying? type questions. Dobbins asserts that the state should not have been allowed to ask him on cross-examination if the state's witnesses were lying. Q: It's your position, Mr. Dobbins, that you've been falsely accused of this crime? A: Exactly. Q: Falsely accused by Myshohn King  A: Exactly Q:  Who was your friend? A: And mainly you. Q: Falsely accused by Andre Coleman? A: No. Q: He's your cousin? A: (Shakes head.) Q: Falsely accused by Thaijuana [last name]? A: (Shakes head.) Q: Falsely accused by Shiniqua [last name]? A: (Shakes head.) They said what they thought I said which that wasn't true. Q: Falsely accused by statements of Derrick [last name]? A: What he say that was incriminati[o]n' to me? Q: And falsely accused by your girlfriend [name]? A: Yeah. It can't happen? We have held that, as a general rule, Are they lying? type questions are inappropriate. Morton, 701 N.W.2d at 233. [4] We explained that this type of questioning shifts the jury's focus by creating the impression that the jury must conclude the relevant witnesses were lying in order to acquit a defendant. Id. at 235. We stated that the state can ask Are they lying? type questions only if the defendant `holds the issue of the credibility of the state's witnesses in central focus.' Id. at 233 (quoting State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 518 (Minn.1999)). In this regard, it is not enough that the defendant's testimony contradicted the witnesses' testimony. Id. at 235. In the instant case, King testified that he saw Dobbins shoot Lavender, an accusation that Dobbins vigorously denied in his testimony. Dobbins further testified that King shot Lavender. As a result, Dobbins' testimony regarding who shot Lavender put King's credibility in central focus. We therefore conclude that the state did not commit misconduct by asking Dobbins if King was lying. See Morton, 701 N.W.2d at 235. The testimony of Dobbins' girlfriend and her two sisters also contradicted Dobbins' testimony, but in contrast to King, these witnesses testified that they were not present during the shooting. As such, part of Dobbins' girlfriend's and her two sisters' testimony constituted circumstantial evidence against Dobbins and not their personal observations about which they were testifying. Further, Dobbins did not indicate in his testimony that his girlfriend and her sisters were deliberately falsifying their testimony when they related what he had said to them. [5] As such, we conclude that Dobbins did not put his girlfriend's and her sisters' credibility in central focus. Accordingly, Dobbins' testimony does not justify the state's questions with respect to their testimony. We therefore conclude the state's questions to Dobbins about whether the testimony of his girlfriend and her two sisters was false were improper.