Opinion ID: 1124360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Evidence of threats to witnesses

Text: The following testimony was elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination of David Levine, a prison inmate incarcerated with Rippo: Q: When you were released what facility were you released from? A: Jean. Q. And was that the psychiatric facility? A: Yes. Q: And that's where you were housed? A: Yes. .... Q: How long did you spend on the psyche facility at prison? A: ... almost two years, I think. Q: Are you on any medications today? A: No. Q: How long have you been off them? A: I never been on them. Q: They didn't give you any medications when you were in the psyche ward? A: No, they kept me in there for protection. Q: And why would that be? A: Because of this trial. On redirect, the State inquired as to why Levine was in the psychiatric facility: Q: Why were you in a psychiatric facility? A: They put me in there `causefor protection. Q: Protection from what: A: Probably because of some threats were made on me. Q: For what reason? A: For this trial. Q: Because you were going to come in and testify? A: Yes. .... Q: Anybody ever threaten you? ... Directly? A: A couple of times. Q: To your face? A: Well, from a distance. Q: You heard it though? A: Yeah. Q: Okay. A: So did some of the staff members. .... Q: And then you went into the psychiatric facility? A: Yes.... The prosecution's intimations of witness intimidation by a defendant are reversible error unless the prosecutor also presents substantial credible evidence that the defendant was the source of the intimidation. Lay v. State, 110 Nev. 1189, 1193, 886 P.2d 448, 450-51 (1994) (citing United States v. Rios, 611 F.2d 1335, 1343 (10th Cir.1979); United States v. Peak, 498 F.2d 1337, 1339 (6th Cir.1974); United States v. Hayward, 420 F.2d 142, 147 (D.C.Cir.1969); Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582, 585 (5th Cir.1969)). Where counsel opens the door to the disputed questions, however, opposing counsel may properly question the witness in order to rehabilitate him or her. Wesley v. State, 112 Nev. 503, 513, 916 P.2d 793, 800 (1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1268, 137 L.Ed.2d 346 (1997). Rippo's counsel opened the door when, on cross-examination, he asked Levine about his confinement at the psychiatric facility and the reasons why he was housed there. In an apparent attempt to portray Levine as mentally unstable, defense counsel elicited information suggesting that Levine had been threatened. Therefore, we conclude that the district attorney properly explored the testimony given during cross-examination and questioned Levine in an effort to rehabilitate his credibility.