Opinion ID: 351592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vaughn's Separate Claims of Error.

Text: 18 Appellant Vaughn raises one substantial separate claim or error: 5 The trial court should have granted a mistrial after the prosecutor asked a question of codefendant Little resulting in the latter's invocation of the fifth amendment privilege. 19 After Little had been tried and convicted, the Government called him as a witness in Vaughn's trial. Concerned about the prejudicial impact of Little's testimony, particularly if he repeatedly invoked the fifth amendment, Vaughn made a motion in limine to exclude his testimony. The trial judge, outside the presence of the jury, listened to the substance of Little's testimony before ruling on the motion. At one point during this examination, the prosecutor asked Little: 20 Did you and Mr. Vaughn ever propose to get together and propose to kite checks in order to finance the Echo Valley Spring Water Company? Little replied: 21 I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me. 22 Counsel for Vaughn made no specific objections to this question nor did he request, if his motion in limine were overruled, that this question be excluded. 23 After hearing all of the testimony of Little, the trial judge overruled Vaughn's motion in limine. Little then took the stand and testified extensively. The prosecutor asked the same question, quoted above, that had been asked of Little outside the presence of the jury. Little gave the same response, declining to answer on grounds of self-incrimination. Counsel for Vaughn immediately moved for a mistrial. The judge denied the motion, but instructed the jury to ignore both the question and the answer. The prosecutor did not make any subsequent references to either the question or the answer. 24 In light of the witness' previous answer to this question we believe that the prosecutor should have avoided asking the same question. Yet the failure to grant a mistrial does not constitute error in this case. Appellant should have objected specifically to the tainted question when first asked outside of the presence of the jury. Even failing that, however, the trial court acted quickly and judiciously to minimize the prejudicial impact of the question upon the defendant, who had been a colleague and collaborator of the witness. This ruling is not a condonation of the prosecutor's action in asking a question that undoubtedly would cause the witness to claim a fifth amendment privilege. Under other circumstances the asking of such question could require a mistrial. See United States v. King, 461 F.2d 53 (8th Cir. 1972). 25 Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm these convictions.