Court Opinion

ID: 9680414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:31:35.744893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:28.468845
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I disagree that this case should be reversed simply because the trial court sustained an objection to a question which may have been objectionable. The question — “What kind of deal are you getting for yourself, Mr. Brown?” — is, at best, argumentalive and the ruling may have been prompted by the form of the question. Had counsel asked questions of the witness in proper form with respect to a negotiated plea, the matter would have been relevant and, doubtless, admitted by the trial court. The fact that the trial court was not denying the defense the right to question the witness concerning a trade-out for his testimony is demonstrated by the follow-up question, “Mr. Brown, you expect to be out of j ail fairly soon don’t you, sir?” If the point was deemed important to the defense, the issue should not have been abandoned so abruptly. Even if the ruling was technically incorrect, which is debatable, it fails to meet the requirement of Rule 103 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, that error may not be predicated on a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. Counsel heard the comment from the prosecutor, “There’s no deal.” He could easily have asked the witness whether he had any understanding or expectation of leniency, yet he chose not to do so and I would not impose the heavy burden of another trial simply to provide a second opportunity for one which was originally declined.