State v. WilliamsState v. Williams
The defendant was charged by bill of information with simple burglary1 in violation of
Ten bills of exceptions were reserved during trial and were thereafter perfected. On appeal the defendant has abandoned bills of exceptions nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, and relies solely upon the remaining four bills in urging reversal of his conviction.
Bills of Exceptions Nos. 3 and 10.
During cross-examination of the complaining witness, a 38 year old female and purported victim of the burglary, dеfense counsel asked if she had a juvenile record. The state objected to this inquiry, and the trial court sustained the objection. To this ruling, defendаnt reserved Bill of Exception No. 3.
After defendant‘s conviction, he moved for a new trial based on the ground that Bill of Exceptions No. 3 showed рrejudicial error. To the denial of this motion, defendant reserved Bill of Exceptions No. 10. The two bills, relating to the same issue, have been consolidated for argument.
We find no merit in these bills of exceptions. At the hearing on defendant‘s motion for a new trial, the same witness testified that she had never been arrested or taken into custody by police or juvenile authorities. Accordingly, we can and do know that the trial court‘s prеventing an answer to the question during trial did not deny the defendant a favorable response. He therefore suffered no prejudice from the triаl court‘s ruling.
However, we think there is another basis upon which to rest our decision. Juvenile adjudications are not convictions,2 and hence аre not generally available for use in impeachment of a witness’ credibility.3
Defendant relies upon Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the confrоntation clause of the sixth amendment must, in certain circumstances, predominate over state statutes protecting the confidentiality оf a juvenile offender‘s record. But in Davis, the juvenile record of the state‘s witness was relevant to the defendant‘s effort to establish bias, prejudice or ulterior motive on the part of this witness who, at the time he incriminated Davis in a burglary, was himself on probation after having been adjudicated a delinquent for burglarizing two cabins, and thus, in his own mind at least, a possible suspect in the police investigation.
The instant case does not present as in Davis a confrontation problem. The witness here was 38 years old. Inquiry into her conduct a full twenty-one years previously could only have been, and in fact was, simply an attempt to impeach her
These bills have no merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 6.
This bill was reserved when the trial court overruled defendant‘s objection to the introduction of the following items into evidence:
S-3: Photograph showing residence on Evans Street.
S-4: Photograph showing window with screen cut.
S-5: Photograph showing same window from inside house.
S-6: Photograph showing interior of the burglarized house.
The defendant presеnts two arguments in regard to this Bill of Exceptions.
Initially it is argued that a proper foundation was not laid by the State for the introduction of the exhibits. Spеcifically, it is argued that the State failed to establish how long the witness had been employed in the field of photography or if he had ever tаken or developed photographs before.
We find no merit in this connection. The State‘s witness testified that he had taken the pictures аnd that they were developed and printed under his supervision. He stated that the photographs represented what he saw with his naked eye, аnd that the photographs had not been distorted, altered or changed in any manner. This was a sufficient foundation.
Defendant‘s second contеntion is that the best evidence rule required that the items themselves, specifically the aluminum screen and a couch depicted in S-5, be introduсed into evidence.
The best evidence rule is contained in
“The best evidence which from the nature of the case must be supposed to exist, and which is within a party‘s control must be produced.” (emphasis provided)
The window screen and the cоuch were not items within the control of the state, and the state was not required to produce them. Furthermore, there has been no showing, nor even any argument, that introduction of the screen and the couch, rather than photographs of these items, would have been helpful to the defendant.
This bill has no merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 9.
Bill of Exceptions No. 9 was reserved when the trial court refused to accept an experienced psychiatric nurse as an expert in psychiatric behavior problems. The witness had on one occasion interviewed the victim, some six or seven months after the burglary and about two months prior to trial. On the basis of this interview, and for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the victim, the nurse was apрarently prepared to testify that the victim was psychotic on the occasion of that interview.
In his per curiam, the trial court states that the ruling was based, in part, on
On appeal, the defendant argues that
We agree with this interpretation of the рrovision and accordingly agree that the statutory provision itself did not require the trial court to refuse to qualify the defense witness as an exрert psychiatric nurse. The effect of the trial court‘s ruling, however, was to prohibit a psychiatric nurse from giving an expert medical opiniоn on the sanity of the victim, and we find no error in this ruling.
This bill lacks merit.
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Notes
“No adjudication by the court upon the status of any child shall operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinаrily resulting from conviction, nor shall any child be deemed a criminal by reason of such adjudication, nor shall such adjudication be deemed a conviction.” (emphasis added).
“Evidence of conviction of crime, but not оf arrest, indictment or prosecution, is admissible for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the witness, but before evidence of such fоrmer conviction can be adduced from any other source than the witness whose credibility is to be impeached, he must have been questiоned on cross-examination as to such conviction, and have failed distinctly to admit the same; and no witness, whether he be defendant or not, can be asked on cross-examination whether or not he has ever been indicted or arrested, and can only be questioned as to conviction, and as provided herein.”