Opinion ID: 4470322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d at 1095 (construing the Pierce test)).

Text: 7 (8) In Abbatiello, we discussed a claim of prosecutorial misconduct where it was alleged that the State interfered with defense alibi witnesses.14 The crime involved there was robbery. One of the State’s witnesses was a prison podmate of Abbatiello’s who was prepared to testify for the State that Abbatiello had confessed the crime to him but intended to call alibi witnesses at his trial. The State disclosed the testimony he was prepared to give to the court and defense counsel at a sidebar and warned that “from [defense counsel’s] point of view . . . it opens up his alibi witnesses to perjury charges, which he now has to address with them.” 15 Defense counsel did discuss the prosecutor’s warning with the alibi witnesses, and they did not testify. On appeal, the defendant argued that the State had committed prosecutorial misconduct by interfering with his witnesses. We found that the prosecutor’s statements to the court “did not amount to ‘substantial interference’ nor d[id] they support an inference that they were intended ‘to coerce [Abbatiello’s witnesses] into silence.’”16 We found no prosecutorial misconduct on those facts and noted that “the State’s comment was a permissible warning,” not a constitutional violation.17 14 Id. at . 15 Id. at . 16 Id. (first alteration added) 17 Id. 8 (9) The State’s comments here were also a permissible warning. Apparently all that was known of Gartner-Hunter relevant to the murder was that he had ridden with Bordley to the scene of the crime and ridden away with him after the crime. The State explained to the trial judge that it had made several attempts to interview Gartner-Hunter, but he had not made any statements to the State. Defense counsel complained that Golden, who also testified, had not been given a similar warning, but the State explained that it had determined she was not a suspect. The State’s comments complied with its obligation to warn an unrepresented witness of the risk that any testimony given could be used against him. The warning did not go over and above what was necessary or appropriate. Bordley complains that the State’s comments were made when Gartner-Hunter was on the stand and could hear them, rather than at side-bar. However, the State’s warning was meant to be communicated to Gartner-Hunter and there was nothing inappropriate about the warning being delivered in open court or in the trial judge’s colloquy. Gartner-Hunter’s subsequent disappearance from the case is not explained and is not evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. He was subject to a subpoena, and nothing in the record indicates whether the defense made a follow-up effort to recall Gartner-Hunter to the stand or if Gartner-Hunter consulted with a lawyer.18 We have no means of determining why 18 At Oral Argument, we asked Bordley’s counsel whether we know if Gartner-Hunter ever spoke with a lawyer, if he was subpoenaed to testify originally, and, if so, whether the court was subsequently asked to enforce the subpoena following the colloquy, to which counsel answered, 9 Gartner-Hunter never took the stand to testify.19 Given the record of the case, we do not find that the prosecutor’s warning “substantially interfere[d] with [the] witness’s free and unhampered determination to testify.” There was no prosecutorial misconduct. (10) Bordley next contends that the Superior Court erred by admitting into evidence text messages between Braunskill and Bordley that were not properly authenticated. This issue was not raised at trial. We generally review for plain error arguments that have not been fairly presented to the trial court. 20 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”21 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which clearly show