Court Opinion

ID: 9684617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:03:59.31786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:58.002248
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result because I agree that the case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. But my reason for doing so is that it was, in my opinion, error for the court to have called prosecution witness Jahmel Imrod Moore as the court’s witness in this case.
The opinion seems to suggest that the reason given by the prosecutor when he requested the court to call Moore as the court’s witness was sufficient, but footnote 20 seems to suggest that the element of surprise is necessary before such action is at all justified. Additionally, there is the suggestion that the defense did not make an adequate objection. Thus, I am not at all sure as to what the criterion is or will be in Missouri for this action. In any event, the fact that a state’s witness (codefendant here) has pled guilty to the offense in a case handled by the same prosecutor is a usual occurrence. It happens frequently, if not at least weekly, in our larger circuits and particularly when the prosecutor makes a deal with a codefendant to obtain his testimony in return for the prosecutor’s making a favorable recommendation to the court sentencing the witness. In less populous circuits or counties where the elected prosecuting attorney is the only prosecutor, it will happen every time one codefendant pleads guilty and then testifies for the state.
I regard the “reason” given by the prosecutor as simply an “excuse” to invoke a procedure whereby he can get a prior inconsistent statement before the jury and hope the jury consider it as substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt.
I concur in result.