Court Opinion

ID: 9560155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:44:25.870242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:14.153306
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
PART I — Concurring.
Other than on the character issue, infra, Part II, I readily agree with the opinion for the Court which Justice Johnson has authored.
PART II — Dissenting.
In Part VII of the majority opinion, it is held that the defendants did not preserve the issue concerning evidence of the victim’s bad character. The opinion states:
Although Dambrell and Gabourie moved to strike testimony of Seagoe’s wife that they characterized as evidence of Seagoe’s good character, after discussion with the trial court outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel withdrew the motion. The defendants did not offer any evidence of Seagoe’s bad character or his propensity for violence. Therefore, they did not preserve any issue there might have been as to the admissibility of this type of evidence. .
Slip Op. at 541, 817 P.2d at 655.
However, at trial the defendants were rebuffed by a doubtful ruling of the trial court in their attempt to elicit testimony from the victim’s wife regarding the victim’s bad character:
Q. Did you have a fear that he was going to try to hurt your mother?
MR. WALKER: Objection, your Hon- or. That is outside the scope of the direct. It is clearly improper under the rules. It’s improper under Rule 404. It’s impeachment by bad acts. It’s disallowable under the rules.
MR. LEMPESIS: It’s offered for—
*544MR. WALKER: It’s exactly what we covered in the hearing a little while ago, Judge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. WALKER: Thank you. I move to strike the question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Granted.
Tr. Yol. 11, 2397.
The trial court erred in precluding the defendants from presenting evidence of the victim’s bad character. Evidence of bad or violent character of the deceased is allowed when the defendant pleads self-defense, as it was in the instant case. I.R.E. 404(a)(2). This was also the common law rule:
Where self-defense is interposed and it appears that there was a more or less mutual combat between the parties, the reputation of the deceased for being turbulent, quarrelsome and dangerous, if communicated to the appellant prior to the affray, is admissible as bearing upon the question of who was the probable aggressor and whether or not the appellant had reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. (30 C.J. 229; People v. Dugas, 310 Ill. 291, 141 N.E. 769.)
State v. Wilson, 41 Idaho 616, 631, 243 Pac. 359, 362 (1925). The circumstances attendant to the looming confrontation are reminiscent of old time shootouts.
The trial court could not preclude the defendants from questioning Seagoe’s wife as to Seagoe’s propensity for violence on the basis that such questions went beyond the scope of the direct examination. On direct examination Seagoe’s wife had testified at length as to Seagoe’s character, declaring that “Jimmy was a good person” and he wanted to get off drugs; that in high school he was a star athlete, a brilliant academic and class president for four years; and that he mended fences, built closets and took care of animals, among them his horse Shadow. Clearly, it was the prosecutor who had opened up the issue of the deceased’s character. Having admitted the testimony offered to prove good character, the trial court incorrectly precluded questioning as to Seagoe’s bad character. That evidence was properly offered and the ruling precluding it was error. Had the prosecutor not opened up that issue, even then there is no case law precedent which would have precluded the defense from offering testimony that the deceased was possessed of bad traits. Where the prosecution opened the issue with its witness on the stand, the defense was without question entitled to cross-examine the witness as to the character of the deceased so as to support its claim that there was good reason for the defendants to be fearful and apprehensive in a confrontation which was about to take place.
The trial court’s ruling disallowing bad character evidence denied the defendants their right to a fair trial. If there is to be justice in the prosecution of criminal actions, these convictions must be vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial, or better in my mind, two separate trials.