Opinion ID: 2345444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Truitt's Cross-Examination

Text: Truitt began dating Johnson when she was seventeen years old. When she was nineteen years old, Truitt gave birth to a son, Shannon Johnson, Jr. According to Truitt, the couple's romantic relationship ended in 2003 because of fights, abuse, and different girls. In August 2006, Truitt began dating Hamelin. On September 24, 2006, Johnson killed Hamelin in Truitt's presence. During the cross-examination of Truitt, Johnson's attorney began the following line of questioning: Between 2003 and 2006 when Mr. Hamlin was shot and killed, was Mr. Hamelin the only boyfriend that you ever had? A. No. Q. No? Between the time that you and Shannon Johnson broke up and the time that you went out with Mr. Hamelin, approximately how many relationships were you in? [Prosecutor #2]: Objection, Your Honor. The Court: Counsel, approach sidebar. The trial judge ruled and explained: The Court: Well, I will allow the question, but I will allow it with the understanding that it does open the door to questions about the conduct of the defendant regarding this victim and her other relationships. Now, I believe that puts us in a position of perhaps many mini-trials in the course of this trial. But I believe that the question for the purpose offered  and that's the only purpose I think makes it relevant  opens the door to the conduct of this defendant with regard to this victim and her being involved in other relationships. [Defense Attorney # 1]: Just so there aren't two counsel addressing the Court, your Honor. The Court: Yes, that's fine. (Defense counsel conferring.) [Defense Attorney # 2]: Your Honor, Defense Attorney # 1 just wanted to discuss  I guess, to clarify your ruling, is that, if we ask those questions, the State can get into that line of questioning. Of course, if we don't ask the questions, they can't get into that line of questioning. The Court: That's correct. I think that the State has clearly indicated they did not pursue that, did not intend to introduce evidence of other acts on the part of this defendant with regard to this victim. And I believe they would become relevant and the state would be entitled to inquire into them. Mr. Johnson, please rise. Mr. Johnson, I'm going to take an unusual step here and inquire of you, to make sure you understand the choices that are being made as a matter of strategic decision-making in your trial. Your attorneys have consulted with you and discussed this matter with you, and they've reported to the Court that they've reviewed the Court's order or ruling, which I indicated would likely be my ruling before the recess, that if these questions are asked about Miss Truitt's relationship with other people in the time period preceding the shooting in November  September of 2006 and the time when she says your relationship ended, exclusive relationship ended in 2003, that it will allow the State to introduce testimony from her and any other witness, medical records, any other information that would show whether you had acted in a way that was intimidating or violent toward her as a result of those relationships. Now, only you know what you did, and Miss Truitt, I suppose. I don't know the answers to those questions, but I raise the issue. Do you understand that, if there is conduct that is of a nature of violence or intimidation or jealousy against this victim as a result of any other relationship between the time she says she stopped seeing you exclusively and the time that she identifies you on September 24, 2006, that that evidence may very well come in? And I know that you, from the discussions we've had in preparation for this trial, hoped that she would not testify against you. She has appeared and testified. I think that it is reasonable to assume that, if there are other incidents, she may very well testify regarding them. And I say if there are, because I don't know. Do you understand the ruling of the Court? The Defendant: Yes. The Court: Okay. And do you wish to consult with your attorneys further about that decision? The Defendant: No. The Court: Okay. And is it your request that your attorneys pursue this line of questioning or not pursue this line of questioning? The Defendant: To pursue it. The Court: Okay. And do you understand that the evidence before the Court right now before this jury might be able to be explained by your attorneys as an act of compulsion and a fit of rage that might excuse or in some way lessen the level of the conviction that you might face because it is a single incident, at least as to the first one with Mr. Hamelin? Do you understand that, if they learn about any other instances, if they are out there, that it could change the nature of what the jury might think about you and your conduct? The Defendant: Yes. On appeal, Johnson argues that the trial judge erred by ruling that, if Johnson persisted in questioning Truitt about romantic relationships she had between 2003 and 2006 with men other than Hamelin, it [would] open the door to questions about the conduct of the defendant regarding [Truitt] and her other relationships. According to Johnson, the line of inquiry he was pursuing was both relevant and admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1), which provides that the accused may introduce evidence of a pertinent trait of his character to show circumstantially that it is unlikely that he committed the particular offense charged. [78] Johnson argues that Truitt's testimony that none of the other men she had dated between 2003 and 2006 had been harmed by Johnson would have been admissible to establish his trait of moderation. Assuming, arguendo, that testimony about Johnson's trait of moderation was admissible, the trial judge properly ruled that testimony would have opened the door to testimony from Truitt that Johnson was not moderate. In Capano v. State, [79] this Court held that Rule 404(a)(1) expressly permits the prosecution to use evidence of bad character traits exhibited by the accused to rebut `evidence of a pertinent trait offered by an accused.' Therefore, the trial judge properly ruled that, if Johnson persisted in asking Truitt about his conduct toward her other boyfriends, he would open the door to questions about his abuse of Truitt during that same period of time. [80]