Opinion ID: 4216301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opening Door to Admission of Excluded Evidence

Text: [¶18] A court does not abuse its discretion in admitting previously excluded evidence to rebut suggestions in defense questioning that are inconsistent with the excluded evidence or attack the credibility of properly admitted testimony that was based on the excluded evidence. State v. Ifill, 574 A.2d 889, 891 (Me. 1990);4 see also State v. Anglin, 2000 ME 89, ¶ 7-8, 751 A.2d 1007; State v. Donovan, 1997 ME 181, ¶ 8, 698 A.2d 1045. [¶19] When a defendant elicits testimony related to previously excluded evidence during cross-examination or through presentation of the 4 In State v. Ifill, 574 A.2d 889 (Me. 1990) (Ifill II), the results of a chemical field sobriety test had been determined inadmissible by a prior Law Court opinion, State v. Ifill, 560 A.2d 1075 (Me. 1989) (Ifill I). In the Ifill II trial, the trial court warned defense counsel that cross-examination of law enforcement witnesses on the extent and adequacy of their sobriety testing and evaluation prior to Ifill’s arrest could open the door to allowing the State to introduce evidence that the excluded sobriety test had been used in making the decision to arrest Ifill. Ifill II, 574 A.2d at 891. “Despite that warning, Ifill’s counsel extensively cross-examined [a law enforcement officer] on his failure to administer to Ifill what were referred to as objective field sobriety tests.” Id. On redirect examination, the trial court allowed the State to present evidence that the excluded test had been given, but without reference to the test results. Id. On appeal, we affirmed. Id. The facts here are similar: evidence was excluded; the trial court warned that defense questioning on issues related to the excluded evidence could open the door to admission of the evidence or part of it; defense cross-examination opened the door to the excluded evidence by suggesting a lack of basis for the officer’s statement that more than three shots were fired; and the court allowed reference to the former girlfriend’s statement that she heard five shots but limited the jury to considering that evidence to determine the credibility of the officer’s statement about the number of shots fired. 11 defense case, and the testimony, as delivered, is inconsistent with the excluded evidence or affects the credibility of the State’s case, a court does not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant has “opened the door” to the excluded evidence and permitting the State to conduct limited questioning for the purpose of responding to the defendant’s challenge. See Ifill, 574 A.2d at 891; see also State v. Ruest, 506 A.2d 576, 577 (Me. 1986); State v. Terrio, 442 A.2d 537, 541 (Me. 1982). [¶20] Here, the trial court appropriately excluded law enforcement testimony about the former girlfriend’s statements but warned both parties that questioning law enforcement witnesses as to why they decided to act in a certain way could open the door to excluded evidence. Despite the court’s warning, Hall cross-examined the officer on his understanding of the number of shots fired, an understanding based on the former girlfriend’s statements. [¶21] The court properly found that Hall had opened the door to the previously excluded statements and allowed the State, in its redirect, to clear up any false impression created by Hall’s questioning that the officer just “made up” that number. See Ifill, 574 A.2d at 891. The court appropriately limited the State to only those statements clarifying the officer’s understanding of the number of shots fired, the issue that Hall had opened the 12 door to, and excluded all other incriminatory statements made by Hall’s former girlfriend. [¶22] The court’s limiting instruction to the jury specifically directed that the statements could not be considered for their truth—whether Hall actually fired four or five shots—but could be considered in assessing the weight to give to the officer’s testimony. See State v. Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 55, 58 A.3d 1032 (“Juries are presumed to have followed jury instructions, including curative instructions.”). Under these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements indicating that Hall’s former girlfriend was aware that Hall had left with a gun and that she then heard four or five shots fired.