Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Questions that Reiterate Defendant’s Testimony not an Attack of Character

A prosecutor’s line of questioning during cross-examination did not call into question the defendant’s character, thereby preventing the defendant from offering two character witnesses

State v. Issacson, 2017 UT App 1. 

The Utah Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the defendant’s character witness because the prosecution did not call into question the character or truthfulness of the defendant during cross-examination. The defendant was convicted of carrying a loaded and concealed weapon after being spotted at a city library with a handgun in his jacket pocket. During the bench trial, the defendant stated that he did not think he needed a concealed-carry permit because of the Second Amendment Right to bear arms. Additionally, the defendant sought to produce two character witnesses to testify on his truthfulness and his ability and knowledge of the concealed carry laws. The trial court reserved a ruling on the witnesses after the prosecution objected to the use of the testimony of the witnesses, who were neither at the scene of the crime nor would have relevant testimony to the elements of the crime.  The court later granted the objection after the prosecution cross-examined the defendant and prevented the witnesses from testifying.

Under Evidence Rule 608, evidence of the defendant’s character’s reputation or truthfulness may be admitted, but only after the character was attacked. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding that the prosecution’s line of questioning, including specific questions regarding the finances of the defendant did not “suggest that [the] defendant was lying about his finances or….that he was being untruthful about anything.” Rather, the questions “merely reiterated” the responses that the defendant gave in his testimony to the defense counsel’s questions. Since the defendant’s reputation was not attacked, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant’s character witnesses


https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/State%20v.%20Isaacson20170106.pdf

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.