Court Opinion

ID: 9672724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:59:17.466304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.711358
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. The prosecuting attorney deliberately offered evidence which was misleading and inadmissible. In my opinion the judge realized later he should have stopped the prosecutor or granted a mistrial, but he didn’t. The prosecuting attorney attempted to leave the jury with the impression that there was evidence they should be able to consider, but that it was being excluded due to the defendant’s objections, which is a highly improper tactic. Here is what the record shows. First, it was apparently understood before trial that the witness, a serologist, could not testify about her findings after examining the victim. Second, during the trial, the transcript of the state’s efforts reads: [Defense attorney]: We have stipulated to the lady’s qualifications. My understanding is that the State is not going to be able to establish chain of custody on any of the materials that she examined, and I’m going to object to any testimony on her part. We don’t have the examining doctor, have we? The Court: You may proceed with her examination. If he does make his chain of custody on it, I will allow it to be— [Prosecutor]: Tom is correct. I can’t make my chain. It is obvious to the court that I can’t, and whenever he objects I’ll quit. The Court: All right, sir. [Defense attorney]: I’ve objected at this point. If you want to go on— The Court: All right. (The witness continuing.). . . . Q. Did you have occasion to examine some items submitted to you from Geneva Wiggins? [Defense attorney]: I want to enter an objection at this time, your Honor. The Court (out of hearing of the jury): Are you going to admit that you can’t make it? [Prosecutor]: I can’t make it. The Court: The objection is sustained. (Italics supplied.) After this deliberate effort in front of the jury, over a proper objection, the state was allowed to ask the witness about the items examined. Third and last, in closing argument, the state again deliberately referred to the objectional evidence: [Prosecutor]: The evidence is unrebutted that she went to the Crime Lab for a rape examination. We put Lisa Cooper on the stand, the serologist. He’s doing his job. He objected to her testimony and we did not hear what that was. He’s doing his job. [Defense attorney]: Your Honor, I think this is improper argument. And I want to object to it. The Court: Ms. Cooper did not testify to anything, Mr. Adams. [Prosecutor]: That’s correct. I didn’t say she did. I said she was put on the stand and she testified as to her job and he objected. The Court: That’s correct. There’s no testimony. [Prosecutor]: That’s correct. The Court: It’s not proper for you to refer to it. [Prosecutor]: He is the one who said there’s no evidence since— The Court: That is correct, sir. [Prosecutor]: All these things that he objected to— The Court: The objection is sustained. You cannot refer to any evidence that was not admitted in this trial. [Prosecutor]: I’m not referring to the evidence. I’m referring that she was on the stand and he’s the one who objected to it, not me. The Court: It is sustained. [Defense attorney]: I’m going to have to move for a mistrial also on the prejudicial nature of reference to evidence that is not before the jury. The Court: We’ll discuss this after the jury goes out. Go ahead and finish and then we’ll take it up in Chambers. In chambers the following occurred after some discussion and a motion for a mistrial was made: [Defense attorney]: I objected to statements that were made in the second closing of the prosecution as making reference to evidence that was not put in trial and which, in effect, in actuality was objected to by the defense and we received a favorable ruling. Our position is that any reference to the serology report which was testified to is improper and is prejudicial to my client as it leaves the jury with the inference that there was objective evidence available of the intercourse which the State was not able to validly get admitted into evidence at the trial. The Court: What did you say, Mr. Adams? I missed part of it. [Prosecutor]: I don’t — you know, I don’t think I commented on the report. I simply said that Tommy was doing his job when he objected to her testimony. Now as to what exactly I said I’m not sure. The Court: But what you did do was indicate that there was testimony that was objected to. [Prosecutor]: No, I just indicated she was on the stand and he was doing his job as the attorney representing his defendant. The court decided an admonition would cure the error. In my judgment, however, the error was so deliberate and flagrant it could not be cured except by a mistrial; otherwise, the rules of evidence are meaningless. I concur in the decision.