Court Opinion

ID: 9632824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:25:50.878536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:12.567888
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Defendant alleges three points of error, to-wit: POINT I: DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ABUSING ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE’S REBUTTAL WITNESS CONCERNING AN ALLEGED PRIOR BAD ACT BY DEFENDANT. POINT III: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ABUSING ITS DISCRETION IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED UPON THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR. All three of these points rest upon whether the trial court was correct in allowing the following questions to be asked oí the defendant: Q. Isn’t it a fact that on December 20, 1977, you were arrested by the Albuquerque Police Department for trying to kill your father? A. Say that again, please. Q. Isn’t it a fact that on December 20th last year, 1977, you were arrested by the Albuquerque Police Department for trying to kill your father with a knife? A. No. * * * * * * Q. And you were attempting to break down the door to get to your father with a butcher knife, isn’t that correct? A. No. * * * * * ‡ Q. Uh huh. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Bartlett, that you were in a fight in the jail and that you sent a person to the hospital, and that you got those bumps in that fight? A. No. Q. You weren’t in a fight in the jail? A. No. The defendant’s attorney objected only to the last two questions and his objection consisted of “I object.” A party must make timely and proper objection to alleged error in the admission of testimony, if he wishes to preserve it for appellate review. Absent a contemporaneous objection, such alleged error will be reviewed on appeal only if it is plain error and results in manifest injustice. U. S. v. Sluder, 457 F.2d 703, 712 (10th Cir., 1972). The general rule, subject to some qualifications, is that objections to evidence should state the specific grounds upon which they are based, and that the trial court may properly disregard general objections which fail to point out why the evidence is inadmissible. General objections, if they raise any point at all, go only to the question whether the evidence is admissible under any phase of the case. State v. Jackson, 47 N.M. 415, 143 P.2d 875 (1943). Rule 103(d), N.M.R. of Evid. provides: “Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.” The defendant admitted that he killed his father but claimed that he did so in self defense. He testified that his father had beaten him since he was a child and did so on the night of the killing. He further testified that he had never struck back until that night. It is my opinion that, in this context, it did not constitute plain error to allow these questions to be asked. It is my further opinion that the trial court would not have erred in allowing these questions even if defendant had objected to those he did not object to, and had objected properly to those he did object to. Rule 405(b), N.M.R. of Evid. provides: “In all cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct.” [Emphasis added.] The defendant made his trait or quality of passivity an essential element of his defense. Defining the word “character” as a person’s normal or usual qualities or traits, the State under Rule 405(b) had the right to question the defendant about specific instances that showed the contrary. I would affirm.