Opinion ID: 2538692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-Trial Motions Hearings

Text: There were two pre-trial motions hearings concerning the admissibility of this evidence. At the hearings, both the defense and prosecution made arguments concerning the relevance, under CRE 401, and the danger of unfair prejudicial impact, under CRE 403, of testimony regarding the defendant's uncommunicativeness. Defense counsel contended not only that testimony regarding the defendant's non-responsive behavior was not relevant under CRE 401, but also that its admission would create a 403 problem, clearly prejudicial to this case and may cause the jury to speculate to the reasons why she didn't respond. The prosecution countered that the defendant's non-responsiveness tended to prove that, because the defendant chose not to answer certain questions, she therefore was legally sane at the time of the shootings. The prosecution argued: It was only when the question was asked, what happened, who shot you, things like that she remained silent. And the probative value of that is we have to prove she knew right from wrong at the time this crime was committed. That is very good evidence she knew right from wrong, she chose not to answer those particular questions. And if the Court would admit it for those limited purposes, we think we need [a] limiting instruction [as to] why that evidence is coming in. The trial court found that the defendant's non-responsiveness to police questioning would be admissible only  on rebuttal if somebody gets up and says something about ability to observe and respond, at that point in time [the defendant's non-responsiveness] would be admissible. [3] (emphasis added). The trial court also ruled that the defendant's statement to Detective Crouch that she did not want to say something wrong was admissible because it was a pre-arrest interview that was non-custodial and non-coercive. Given this distinction between the defendant's statement and her silence, the trial court presumably relied upon the Fifth Amendment privilege as the basis for its admissibility determination. However, because we find that both the statement and the silence are equally inadmissible as irrelevant under our evidentiary analysis, we do not make any distinction between the two forms of evidence in our holding. At trial, the court failed to follow its own limitation of the evidence regarding the defendant's silence for rebuttal purposes only, and instead allowed the testimony in from the very outset. [4] The prosecution made references to the defendant's silence in its opening statement and proceeded to call the six witnesses discussed above to testify to that silence in its case-in-chief. Although the defense counsel maintained its objection to such testimony, the prosecution argued that the evidence was going to come in any way you look at it and that it would be inconvenient to have the witnesses return for rebuttal. Defense counsel conceded that despite its objection, for the purposes of uniformity and their own continuity, they can ... bring the evidence now. Thus, the trial court allowed the prosecution to repeatedly reference the defendant's silence in its case-in-chief, without any limiting instruction regarding such evidence, whether it be for impeachment or rebuttal purposes.