Opinion ID: 2029523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Intentionally Misstating the Evidence and Asking a Were They Lying? Question

Text: Mayhorn argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the evidence regarding the shoot-out during cross-examination of Mayhorn. We agree. The state called Nicole Jordan as a witness, and elicited the following testimony on direct examination: Q: Okay. So do you know of any conflict between your brother and [Mayhorn] when they were down in Kok[o]mo? A: He mentioned a couple of times that they got into it, you know. He wouldn't get into deep details   .     Q: Now, you told us that you had talked to your brother and he said there was some conflict down in Kok[o]mo, is that right? A: Yeah. Q: And that was between him and [Mayhorn]? A: Yeah. Q: Did your brother ever tell you that he got shot at? A: Yeah. Q: By anybody? A: He said it before, yeah. Later, in the state's cross-examination of Mayhorn, the following exchange occurred without objection: Q: Mr. Mayhorn, you were in the courtroom when Nicole Jordan testified that she knew of a shootout that you and her brother were in in Kokomo, right? A: No. SheI don't remember her saying anything about a shootout. Q: You don't remember her saying that from that witness stand   ? She talked about a shootout in Kokomo [involving Jordan and Mayhorn]. A: No, because TJ and I were never in a shootout in Kokomo. Q: So you would remember that, right? A: Yes. Q: So Nicole Jordan must have been lying from the witness stand, is that correct? We conclude that the prosecutor's questions misstated Nicole Jordan's testimony. Because of the earlier arguments to the court regarding the admissibility of the shoot-out recording, the state should have been sufficiently familiar with Nicole Jordan's testimony to avoid inadvertently misstating it. We therefore conclude that this misstatement was intentional. A prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence. See State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609, 618 (Minn.2001); State v. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815, 817 (Minn.1993) (quoting Standards for Criminal Justice § 3-5.8(a) (1979)) (It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence   .). We conclude that the prosecutor's misstatement of Nicole Jordan's testimony constituted misconduct. Mayhorn argues that the prosecutor compounded the error of misstating Nicole Jordan's testimony when she asked him, So Nicole Jordan must have been lying from the witness stand, is that correct? We agree. This court has not adopted a blanket prohibition of were they lying questions, but such questions have no probative value and are generally improper. Clifton, 701 N.W.2d at 801. We conclude that this question to which Mayhorn objected at trialconstituted misconduct.