Court Opinion

ID: 9848384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:18:11.450664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:16.162594
License: Public Domain

DIMOND, Justice,
joined by RABIN-OWITZ, Justice (concurring in the result).
Civ.R. 43(g) (12) states:
A party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by leading questions.
In his opinion the Chief Justice holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to permit appellant to examine the State’s witness, Gamradt, by leading questions, because there was no showing that this witness was hostile. I disagree. As a witness for the State, Gamradt testified that appellant did the killing. In his opening statement to the jury made before Gamradt was called as a defense witness, counsel for appellant stated that “the defense will ask you to acquit George Fajeriak of the crime, because the killer of Anthony Rizzo was Dean Raymond Gamradt.” I believe this clearly supports a presumption that when Gamradt was called by the defense he would be a hostile witness, “hostile” meaning inimical or unfriendly. I do not see how Gamradt could be considered to be friendly when he had accused appellant of committing the crime and when appellant’s counsel indicated to the jury that Gamradt was guilty of the crime.
However, I can concur in. the result reached by the Chief Justice in affirming *790the judgment below because I do not believe, considering the entire record, that the trial court’s refusal to allow defense counsel to interrogate Gamradt by leading questions was prejudicial error.