Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Misconduct in Cross-Examination

Text: ¶ 42 The prosecutor asked Dr. Potts if he had spoken to any defense witnesses or knew what the defense investigator had said to them. Dr. Potts answered, No. The prosecutor then asked, Do you know whether or not [the investigator] went out there and told him, hey, listen, we are trying to build an insanity defense, can you think of anything, ever, in the defendant's life that maybe you thought was a little strange or weird or odd? Dr. Potts responded, That would be pure conjecture, Mr. Zawada. On two occasions, Mr. Zawada asked questions that put before the jury information that earlier evaluations of Defendant were done after contact with the court system. The trial court had expressly precluded this information. Counsel's objections were sustained. ¶ 43 Referring to Dr. Morris's opinion that he could not evaluate Defendant's state of mind because Defendant would not provide enough information, the prosecutor asked Dr. Potts, So when does the issue of insanity arise in this case? The court sustained the objection. ¶ 44 One question to Dr. Potts was an improper rhetorical argument: I mean, you pick up Mr. Hughes as aas a client for the court, initially, and you are not able to make any decision, and then what happens is after you are hired by the defense, you are able to come to a conclusion? The objection was sustained. ¶ 45 The prosecutor ended one argument with Dr. Potts by blurting, Do you know that this Court found this defendant competent? The court called counsel to the bench and said that competency was not an issue at this time. The prosecutor replied, I don't think the competency ever was an issue, quite frankly. After denying Mr. Cornell's motion for a mistrial, the court instructed the jury that competency was not an issue and they were not to consider that issue or be concerned about it. ¶ 46 The defense called nine other witnesses for brief testimony. An officer testified that, prior to Defendant's arrest, another officer radioed that Defendant had a possible past psych history and that it would be something that we would have to deal with after Defendant was arrested. A neighbor testified to strange behavior by Defendant. A jail records custodian testified that Defendant's sister was not one of his visitors after his arrest. Two public defenders testified that they did not give Defendant any police reports after his arrest. Four witnesses testified on various other matters. Defendant did not testify.