Opinion ID: 2519737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ronald and Catherine Stevens

Text: The State called Ronald and Catherine Stevens as witnesses. Mr. and Mrs. Stevens are the parents of Heidi Hageman, Gomez's girlfriend. Mr. Stevens testified that he had seen Gomez firing a .38 caliber handgun in the days prior to the crime in question. Mrs. Stevens testified that she received a phone call from Gomez on the morning after the crime in question. She drove to Athol, Idaho, and picked up Gomez and Hageman and gave them a ride back to her house. She testified that Gomez laid low in the seat of the car like he was hiding, and that she had previously seen Gomez driving the pickup truck in question. On cross-examination Gomez sought to introduce evidence that the police had found marijuana in the Stevens' house during a search. The State objected on the basis of relevancy. Gomez argued that growing marijuana where a minor resides is a felony, and that there was a tape recording of discussions with the Stevenses that statements were made in view of your cooperation and we are not going to prosecute you for these significant felonies. Gomez sought to question both Mr. and Mrs. Stevens to show that they had not been prosecuted for this crime and this could show bias. The prosecutor conducted a voir dire examination of Mrs. Stevens who denied any deal for her testimony. Based on this testimony, the district court upheld the State's objection, stating: I don't find anything here that would establish a motive here prompting the cooperation with the police from the fact that there were marijuana plants on the property. The district court excluded the evidence, holding that it was more prejudicial than probative under IRE 403. The questions regarding the presence of marijuana were relevant, even though Catherine Stevens denied any agreement to testify in exchange for non-prosecution. Marijuana plants were found, and the witness had not been prosecuted for this. The jury could infer that an agreement took place, even though Catherine Stevens denied one existed. The question, therefore, is whether there was an abuse of discretion in restricting cross-examination on this subject. The Court concludes that there was. The Stevenses had strong motivations to testify for the State. They were growing marijuana in a residence with children. This could have resulted in a felony prosecution. They were not prosecuted. The jury could have concluded that they testified for the State to avoid prosecution, and this could have influenced the evaluation of their credibility. This is the type of cross-examination that is routinely allowed to determine whether witnesses have a motive to testify that may bring their credibility into question. Cross-examination should have been allowed.