Court Opinion

ID: 9611428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:56:43.020629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:32.247706
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
with whom RAPER, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion of the Court in this case, and I join in the dissenting opinion of Justice Raper. Justice Raper details the record facts which I would find to be controlling in this instance. These facts are ignored in the majority opinion, and this perhaps is demonstrative of a misapprehension of the record by the majority of the Court.
I would add some comments with respect to the law. The majority opinion apparently attaches some significance to the fact that the document in question was never introduced into evidence. “The fact that evidence was fabricated is admissible even though the evidence itself was not used.” 1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, § 218, p. 466 (13th Ed., The Lawyer’s Cooperative Publishing Co. and Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1972). It is the conduct of a party or a witness in attempting to fabricate evidence that is relevant with respect to this issue, whether as part of a case-in-chief or as impeachment, and it is not important that the effort to impede justice is unsuccessful. State v. Uhls, 121 Kan. 587, 249 P. 597 (1926); People v. Randall, 294 Mich. 478, 293 N.W. 725 (1940).
My major differences with respect to the law as reflected in the majority opinion relate to an apparent identical treatment of the defendant and his father as witnesses, and the failure to distinguish between the utilization of evidence demonstrating the fabrication of evidence for purposes of proving a case-in-chief and for purposes of impeachment. It is clear, even from the cases reflected in the majority opinion, that so far as the father’s appearance as a witness is concerned his causing the receipt from the Geyser Drive-In to be dated on the date of this alleged offense properly was available for purposes of impeachment and there was nothing improper about the cross-examination of the father relative to this document. The matter is for the jury to consider insofar as these facts may affect the father’s credibility.
The majority opinion treats the cross-examination of the defendant as being for all purposes the same as using this information in the case-in-chief against him. Therefore, the majority espouses the rule that it is necessary to lay a foundation connecting the defendant with the fabrication of the evidence prior to asking him about it. The effect of such a requirement is of course to foreclose the cross-examination of any defendant about such matters. The myriad of objections which could be lodged to an attempt to cross-examine a defendant as a witness with respect to his involvement with third parties who fabricate evidence on his behalf would seem to prevent such an effort beyond all question. The situation of the cross-examination as distinguished from case-in-chief is, however, distinguishable because such information when presented in cross-examination relates only to the credibility of the defendant as a witness. The state having rested its case, it well might be improper to offer such evidence for any purpose other than impeachment at this stage of the trial. If requested, a limiting instruction would be appropriate.
The majority opinion seems to agree, and properly so, that a defendant is to be treated as any other witness if he elects to take the stand and testify. Under such circumstances it is permissible to cross-examine the defendant about fabrication of evidence without laying the foundation connecting him to that event which is required if it is to be established as part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief. The authorities in point so hold. Corothers v. State, 75 Ark. 574, 88 S.W. 585 (1905); State v. Thornhill, 188 La. 762, 178 So. 343 (1937); State v. Childers, 165 La. 622, 115 So. 802 (1928); Bates v. Holladay, 31 Mo.App. 162 (1888); State v. Deal, 52 Or. 568, 98 P. 165 (1908); Jenkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d *653900 (1972); Martineau v. May, 18 Wis. 54 (1864). Consequently, the correct disposition of this case under pertinent authorities is that it was not error for the prosecuting attorney to cross-examine the defendant relative to the fabrication of the receipt from the Geyser Drive-In. Obviously, if the county attorney could not connect the defendant with that event, his efforts would be futile, and in all likelihood counter-productive.
As noted earlier, Justice Raper has spelled out the record facts which in his judgment and mine are sufficient to at least create a jury question as to whether this defendant was involved in the preparation and utilization of this fraudulent exhibit. For me it is highly unlikely that this occurred without the defendant’s knowledge. From the defendant’s own answers it might reasonably be concluded that the receipt was altered with his knowledge, and that he acquiesced in the effort at least to the point of submitting the document as a proposed exhibit at the pre-trial conference.
With respect to such efforts on the part of third parties, I think my view of such a situation is aptly captured by Professor Wigmore in the following statement:
“In thus connecting it with the party, it is to be noted, on the one hand, that no mere technical theory of agency will suffice to charge him; for it is not a question of legal liability, but of actual moral connivance. On the other hand, no mere technical deficiencies of proof should be allowed to exonerate him; due regard to the common probabilities of experience should be paid. For example, if a witness has been suborned by B, a clerk in the defendant’s bank, it is idle to argue that such a clerk has no implied authority, to tamper with witnesses, and therefore that some conversation or letter of the defendant, expressly authorizing B’s errand, must be proved. Why should B meddle in such fashion, except upon some hint or order frqm the defendant? The relation between the two, together with common experience, should suffice to admit the fact, leaving to the defendant the opportunity to exculpate himself, as he easily could if innocent of any share. The common probabilities of such cases cannot be ignored; and it is better to admit such facts in the fair certainty that an innocent party can protect himself, than to exclude them by requiring such a degree of connecting proof as practically gives a general immunity to fraud and chicanery. Most Courts exhibit an undue tenderness for technicality in dealing with such evidence, and shut their eyes, with solemn pretence, to that which every one must believe to be deserving of strong suspicion.” 2 Wigmore on Evidence, § 280, pp. 128-129 (3d Ed., Little, Brown and Company, 1940).
In this instance, even adopting the standard for foundation for utilization of such evidence as part of the ease-in-chief to demonstrate guilty knowledge, the record is adequate to make a jury question. Under those circumstances, it could not be error for the prosecutor to cross-examine with respect to this issue. The trial court was quite correct in ruling that the evidence concerning a meal receipt was within the province of the jury.