Court Opinion

ID: 9773033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:35:23.234337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:49.774226
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. Glenn Lloyd Wilson was charged with first degree battery in the stabbing of Lloyd Stewart. Stewart had filed a civil suit against Wilson seeking damages of $1,000,000, which was pending while the criminal case was being tried. When counsel for the defense asked Stewart on cross-examination whether, in effect, Stewart would have dropped the criminal charges if Wilson had paid him $ 18,000, the prosecution moved for a mistrial and the trial court subsequently granted the motion. On these proceedings the majority concludes the appellant cannot now be tried at all because of double jeopardy. Thus, on the basis of a question Wilson’s counsel should not have asked the State of Arkansas is deprived of the opportunity to try an individual for a serious breach of the criminal laws. I respectfully dissent. I don’t question the defendant’s right to bring out the fact that the prosecuting witness is also suing the defendant in a civil case. But that was amply done here. Defense counsel in voir dire, opening statement and questioning had told the jury that Stewart was suing Wilson for a million dollars, providing all the basis necessary to argue bias. When counsel then implied that Stewart had not only offered to settle for $18,000 but that the criminal charges would also be dropped in the process, I believe he went too far and the trial court was well within its prerogative in ruling the question improper and, if it deemed the fairness of the trial sufficiently impaired, to grant a mistrial. The majority declares that to deny the defendant that question is reversible error. I believe it was within the trial court’s discretion by any of several rules of procedure and evidence and the fact the defense tacitly agreed is found in the record — after the prosecution moved for a mistrial, defense counsel asked the court to admonish the jury to disregard the question. This was cumulative evidence, which is properly excludable. Rule 403, Unif. R. Evid., Lee v. State, 266 Ark. 870, 587 S.W.2d 78 (1979). Moreover, even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, delay, waste of time, confusion of the issues or having a tendency to mislead the jury. Pitts v. State, 273 Ark. 720, 617 S.W.2d 849 (1981) . In holding the evidence admissible under Unif. R. Evid. Rule 408 to show bias or prejudice, the majority overlooks the express intent of Rule 403 to exclude evidence otherwise admissible where its probative value is overcome by its prejudicial effect. The question, I believe, has obvious prejudicial overtones, implying that the defendant is being prosecuted at public expense simply to enrich the prosecuting witness, whereas the probative force, over and above the facts already brought out, has only limited value. In Boreck v. State, 277 Ark. 2, 639 S.W.2d 352 (1982) , we reversed a trial court’s refusal to permit the defense to ask the prosecuting witness in a rape trial if she had agreed to drop the charges in payment of the medical bills. But there was no pending civil case, and no other means of proving bias, no civil case being involved. Furthermore, there was no uncertainty as to the witness’s extrajudicial agreement — she had actually agreed to drop the charges in consideration of an agreement to pay her medical bills and had dictated a statement to the police avowing those terms. In contrast, there is nothing here to show that Stewart has agreed to drop either the civil or the criminal case, assuming he has the power, nor any proffer that he has offered to settle the civil case for any amount. At the very least, the defendant should be required to proffer a factual basis for his question before we brand it error, otherwise we have held reversible error and, hence, double jeopardy to have occurred purely on theoretical grounds. Jackson v. State, 284 Ark. 478, 683 S.W.2d 606 (1985); Williams v. State, 258 Ark. 207, 523 S.W.2d 377 (1975). I believe the incident in this trial was prompted by the excessive advocacy of defense counsel, rather than by any abuse by the prosecution or the trial judge. The record reveals that during opening statement defense counsel told the jury Mr. Stewart had hired Mr. Walter Niblock to file a civil suit, prompting an objection that a civil action had no bearing on criminal charges, which the court sustained. Thereafter during cross-examination of Stewart defense counsel renewed the topic: Q: Did you get a lawyer and sue Mr. Wilson? A: Yes. Q: Have you gone over the facts and your testimony with your lawyer? PROSECUTOR: Now, Judge, I am going to object again. I don’t think that has any relevance, not that civil suit, to this cause of action. When the judge sustained the objection again, defense counsel continued: Q: You have a definite financial interest in the outcome of this case don’t you Mr. Stewart? A: Well, not financial, I want justice done. Q: Uh huh. As a matter of fact if Mr. Wilson had had $18,000 to pay you, we wouldn’t be here today would we? The majority opinion focuses on the question about the $18,000 and ignores entirely the preceding question which came after the judge had sustained an objection for the second time. The question created an obvious inference that Stewart would benefit financially if Wilson were convicted. That, of course, is patently incorrect, as the outcome of the criminal case would have no bearing whatever on the civil case. Wright v. Wright, 248 Ark. 105, 449 S.W.2d 952 (1970); Smith v. Dean, 226 Ark. 438, 290 S.W.2d 439 (1956). That, I believe, was the more offensive question and the follow-up question about the $ 18,000 was simply the finishing touch. Many courts have recognized, properly I believe, that where it is the conduct of the defendant or defense counsel that occasions the mistrial, the defendant will not be heard to complain on double jeopardy grounds. McDaniel v. State, 604 P. 2d 147 (C.A. Okla. 1979); United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976). Haight v. State, 259 Ark. 478, 533 S.W.2d 510 (1976). In McDaniel v. State, supra, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals said: To dispense with any ambiguity that might exist we expressly hold that in the absence of evidence of bad faith conduct by the prosecutor or trial court, intended to harass or prejudice the rights of an accused, a defendant will not be heard to complain of the proximate result of his own misconduct at trial. See Pierce v. State, Okl.Cr., 383 P.2d 699 (1963). See also Shimley v. State, 87 Okl.Cr. 179, 196 P.2d 526 (1948). We hold that nothing in the United States Constitution requires that the defendant be allowed to benefit from the exposure of his intended fraud. Were the defendant to prevail in his argument, it would reduce the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy to a continuing invitation for criminal defendants to intentionally introduce extreme provocation into the trial in the hope that the prosecutor or trial court would be induced to misconduct necessitating a mistrial. We decline to hold that the United States Constitution extends such an invitation. In Ferby v. Blankenship, 501 F. Supp. 89 (E.D. Va. 1980) defense counsel, while cross-examining a police officer, asked if the defendant had offered to take a lie detector test. The prosecution moved for a mistrial which the court granted. The District Court held the defendant had not been subjected to double jeopardy. In People v. Bell, 283 N.W.2d 763 (C.A. Mich. 1979), defense counsel in opening statement told the jury that a prior judicial declaration of the defendant’s incompetency to stand trial had already been made by the trial court. This was held on appeal to be incorrect and while incompetency was an issue, the claim that defendant had been so declared was not: “It is one thing to refer to evidence of a claimed fact. It is another thing to refer to a judicial declaration of that fact.” The Court of Appeals determined that a manifest necessity had occurred. In Barnett v. Florida, 382 So.2d 412 (C.A. Flor. 1980), the trial court declared a mistrial after an outburst by the defendant in the presence of the jury which related to exculpatory matters allegedly told to a witness by a third party. The trial court found the remarks were so prejudicial to the state’s case that a fair trial would be impossible and an admonition ineffective. The Florida court found “manifest necessity.”: Although the defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal, such right is subordinated to the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgment; thus the double jeopardy protection does not preclude a second trial when the initial trial is discontinued under circumstances manifesting necessity for so doing, and when the failure to discontinue should affect the ends of justice. Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949). In Jones v. Commonwealth, 400 N.E.2d 242 (S.C. of Mass. 1980), while the Supreme Court found the mistrial was chargeable to the trial judge, rather than defense counsel, the opinion states: The Commonwealth also argues that a defendant who misbehaves should not be able to escape retrial if the judge thereby declares a mistrial. We agree. “It would be a reproach to the administration of justice if a defendant, through his counsel, could pollute the atmosphere of a trial and then turn this to his own advantage on appeal. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 346 Mass. 373, 379, 191 N.E.2d 753, 758 (1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 933 (1964). Our own cases have recognized the soundness of this policy. In Haight v. State, supra, defense counsel told the jury in opening statement that there had been plea bargain discussions and even mentioned length of sentence the prosecutor had recommended. Without phrasing it in terms of “manifest necessity,” we said the remarks were prejudicial and an admonition would not have been sufficient. I submit this case is plainly governed by Haight. If mention of a plea bargain is too damaging for correction, I believe the prejudice which surely accompanied counsel’s telling the jury, incorrectly, that the prosecuting witness would gain financially by a conviction is of the same stripe. Some indication of that appraisal is found in the fact that defense counsel asked the court to admonish the jury to disregard his own question. The obvious and alarming effect of this decision is that while the defense can move for a mistrial with impunity, the prosecution can ill afford to do so, for unless the prosecution prevails on appeal the defendant is discharged. This strikes me as patently unfair, as the state is entitled to a fair trial, too, yet it can not move for a mistrial where the stakes are an outright dismissal of the charges, even though the defense may have prejudiced the jury. “Neither side has a right to have his case decided by a jury which may be tainted by bias.” Arizona v. Washington, 98 Sup.Ct. 824 (1978). This opinion should not end without repeating the cogent view of Justice Harlan in United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 466, 84 S.Ct. 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d 451: While different theories have been advanced to support the permissibility of retrial, of greater importance than the conceptual abstractions employed to explain the Ball principle are the implications of that principle for the sound administration of justice. Corresponding to the right of an accused to be given a fair trial is the societal interest in punishing one whose guilt is clear after he has obtained such a trial. It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction. From the standpoint of a defendant, it is at least doubtful that appellate courts would be as zealous as they now are in protecting against the effects of improprieties at the trial or pretrial stage if they knew that reversal of a conviction would put the accused irrevocably beyond the reach of further prosecution. In reality, therefore, the practice of retrial serves defendants’ rights as well as society’s interest. Holt, C.J., joins this dissent.