Opinion ID: 1059169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Question Regarding Failure to Cooperate

Text: Jackson complains that the trial court improperly allowed the Commonwealth to cross-examine his court-appointed DNA expert, Shawn Weiss, regarding the witness' refusal to meet with the Commonwealth's DNA expert. In his direct testimony, Weiss testified that he did not conduct independent testing of the DNA samples but questioned the Commonwealth's testing results in a number of areas. During cross-examination, Weiss acknowledged that the Commonwealth had attempted to set up a meeting between Weiss and the Commonwealth's DNA experts to talk about and look at each other's calculations. The Commonwealth then asked Weiss why he had not agreed to the meeting. Weiss replied that he was under the direction of the person that hired [him]. The Commonwealth went on to ask if Weiss knew that the Commonwealth had just opened everything up, showed it, no requests having been made. At this point Jackson objected, saying that the Commonwealth's questioning implied that somehow we weren't following the rules. The trial court overruled the objection. Jackson argues here that the Commonwealth's questioning misled the jury because it implied that Jackson did not adhere to the rules of discovery. [3] The Commonwealth responds, that by asking the reasons for Weiss' refusal to meet with the Commonwealth's DNA experts, it was exploring Weiss' credibility, potential bias and the basis of his opinions. Cross-examination of a witness to establish or explore the bias of that witness based on a relationship to a party in the case is proper. Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 465, 470 S.E.2d 114, 129 (1996). Furthermore, limitation of cross-examination is within the trial court's discretion. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Sonney, 236 Va. 482, 488, 374 S.E.2d 71, 74 (1988). In this case Weiss' statement that he refused to meet with the Commonwealth's DNA experts because of his relationship to the defense could have reflected bias. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court erred in overruling Jackson's objection to the Commonwealth's question.
Jackson argues in his fourteenth assignment of error that the trial court incorrectly barred Jackson from asking his expert witness, Dr. Steven C. Ganderson, a hypothetical question about false confessions. [4] While the trial court was willing to permit Dr. Ganderson to testify generally regarding circumstances that could lead to false confessions, it forbade Dr. Ganderson from testifying about the truth or falsity of Jackson's statement. We find no error in the trial court's ruling. The physical and psychological environment surrounding a confession can be very relevant in determining whether a confession is reliable, and expert witnesses may testify to a witness's or defendant's mental disorder and the hypothetical effect of that disorder. Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 182, 187, 557 S.E.2d 205, 208 (2002). Expert witnesses may not, however, render an opinion on the defendant's veracity or reliability of a confession because whether a confession is reliable is a matter in the jury's exclusive province. Id. During voir dire, the trial court accepted Dr. Ganderson as an expert on psychology and sexual-psychological issues. Jackson elicited testimony from the doctor on the factors that contribute to transference, a phenomenon in which a subject becomes more prone to suggestion and may say things which are untrue in an attempt to gain approval from an authority figure. Dr. Ganderson also testified about antecedents and objective goals of a defendant that could affect the reliability of a defendant's statements. While the trial court permitted this questioning, it sustained the Commonwealth's objection when Dr. Ganderson questioned the veracity of Jackson's statement based on transference theory. The trial court, relying on our decision in Pritchett, ruled that Dr. Ganderson could testify regarding the circumstances surrounding Jackson's confession but not about its truth: Now, I still think in terms out of what he can't say, that's a false confession. I think the jury still has to make those kinds of conclusions. Those are factual conclusions, but he can testify about the surroundings and what he believes the impact has on this defendant with his mental capacity as well as the surroundings of the circumstances out of which the confession was taken. There is no error in this holding.
Jackson asserts that the trial court erred in preventing Jackson from presenting certain so-called `negative' evidence of good character. Jackson refers specifically to the testimony of two individuals he called as character witnesses. Jackson asked the witnesses if they were aware of or had heard that Jackson had a reputation in the community for being violent. The Commonwealth objected, stating that before asking a question of this sort, Jackson had to establish that the witness was aware of Jackson's reputation in the community. The trial court sustained the objections. This assignment of error is without merit. Jackson was not prohibited from presenting negative evidence of good character. Negative evidence of good character is based on the theory that a person has a good reputation if that reputation has not been questioned. Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 862, 871-72, 55 S.E.2d 24, 29-30 (1949). It is admissible, as is other reputation evidence, if the proper foundation is established. See Barlow v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 338, 340-41, 297 S.E.2d 645, 646 (1982). Thus, a witness must be aware of the party's reputation in the community before he may testify as to the lack of any reputation for a particular characteristic. Jackson did not establish that either witness had knowledge of Jackson's reputation in the community before asking the type of question recited above. Accordingly, the trial court not only was correct in sustaining the Commonwealth's objection to the questions, but nothing in the record shows that Jackson was prevented from introducing negative evidence of reputation. In fact, the record shows that in at least one instance, Jackson proceeded to establish that the witness had the requisite knowledge of Jackson's reputation in the community and then testified that he never heard anything from anybody of [Jackson] doing any wrongdoing to anybody. We find no error in the ruling of the trial court.
Jackson asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the Commonwealth's evidence. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because his confession was not reliable, the forensic testing was inadequate, and no other evidence connected him to the crime scene. In reviewing the record to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and give the Commonwealth all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence. Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 313-14, 541 S.E.2d 872, 878 (2001). Jackson argues that his confession was not reliable for two reasons: his will was overborne by the deception of the officers and the confession was false. We have already held that Jackson's will was not overborne, and, therefore, we reject that argument as a basis for finding his confession unreliable. Jackson also bases his assertion that his confession was false on the alleged deception of the officers during his interrogation. Jackson does not offer, and we cannot find, any rationale or evidence supporting the conclusion that the tactics utilized by the officers during his interrogation caused Jackson's confession to be false. The forensic testing was inadequate, according to Jackson, because the DNA testing of the blood mixture on the toe of a sock found at the crime scene involved only eight loci. Jackson's DNA loci matched six of the eight loci. The standard procedure of the state laboratory is to test 13 or 16 loci. Shawn Weiss, Jackson's expert in DNA testing, testified that, had 13 or 16 loci been tested, there was a possibility that other suspects may have had more loci matches than Jackson. Jackson's criticism of the Commonwealth's forensic testing does not change the fact that some of the loci matched his DNA. Under these circumstances, as his own expert testified, Kent Jackson cannot be excluded as a minor contributor. Finally, the lack of other forensic evidence connecting Jackson to the crime scene does not support the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove Jackson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson's detailed confession, corroborated by evidence of the injuries Mrs. Kaiser suffered, was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court did not err in denying Jackson's motion to strike. Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 133, 321 S.E.2d 273, 279 (1984).