Opinion ID: 2114044
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Misconduct during officer's testimony

Text: Having decided that the prosecutor's reference to Smallwood's offer to plead guilty during opening statements does not constitute reversible error, we turn our attention to issues raised by Smallwood but not decided by the court of appeals. The first of these issues is Smallwood's contention that Robideau committed misconduct because the officer made indirect references to inadmissible evidence during his trial testimony. The prosecution and Smallwood's counsel agreed that the second conversation between Smallwood and Robideau was inadmissible because it occurred after Smallwood had retained counsel and outside of counsel's presence. Smallwood complains that the second statement was referred to during trial in an exchange that occurred during cross-examination of Robideau by Smallwood's counsel. Smallwood's counsel asked Robideau a question to which Robideau replied: Well, it depends on which statement we're talking about. Later, Smallwood's counsel asked: He never admitted going into a house, though, did he? To which Robideau replied: On that particular date I  I believe when I talked to him on the 31st-. Smallwood argues that because Robideau was warned by the prosecutor not to reference the November 1 statement, these references imply that while Smallwood did not admit his guilt in the first statement, he did so in the second. Smallwood objected to the officer's testimony and moved for a mistrial, which was denied by the trial court, and Smallwood's counsel rejected the trial court's offer of a curative instruction. Smallwood relies on State v. Huffstutler, a case where we reversed a conviction based upon an improper answer by a deputy. 269 Minn. 153, 154-55, 130 N.W.2d 347, 348 (1964). In Huffstutler the answer given by the police officer was both nonresponsive and misleading. Id. at 155, 130 N.W.2d at 348. The deputy was asked to relate his conversation with the defendant. In response, the deputy castigated the reputation of a woman who was with the defendant most of the day of the alleged larceny and who was a defense witness. The deputy testified: I thought I would just inform you [the defendant] that Catherine had been known to have social diseases on occasion and I might let you know about that so you can be watchful. `Well,' he answered, `well, if she has got it, I got it too.' Id. Despite a curative instruction by the trial court, we reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial. Id. at 156, 130 N.W.2d at 349. Here, while the officer's answers could be perhaps characterized as belligerent, the answers do not rise to the level of misconduct or prejudice in Huffstutler. Robideau's answers fall far short of the answer given by the deputy in Huffstutler, where the deputy on his own initiative decided to harm the reputation of a witness and the defendant. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Smallwood's request for a mistrial.