PUBLISHED OPINION
Case No.: 94-1596-CR
†Petition for
Review filed.
Complete
Title
of
Case:STATE OF
WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARVIN L. HEREFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.†
Submitted
on Briefs: June 13, 1995
COURT COURT OF
APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
Opinion
Released: July 20, 1995
Opinion
Filed: July
20, 1995
Source
of APPEAL Appeal from a judgment and an order
Full
Name JUDGE COURT: Circuit
Lower
Court. COUNTY: Rock
(If
"Special" JUDGE: Edwin
C. Dahlberg
so
indicate)
JUDGES: Eich,
C.J., Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
Concurred:
Dissented:
Appellant
ATTORNEYSFor the defendant-appellant the
cause was submitted on the briefs of Daniel P. Bestul of Duxstad,
Vale, Bestul & Gartzke, S.C. of Monroe.
Respondent
ATTORNEYSFor the plaintiff-respondent the
cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, attorney general,
and Daniel J. O'Brien, assistant attorney general.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED July
20, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.
See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62,
Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-1596-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE
OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARVIN
L. HEREFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Rock County: EDWIN C. DAHLBERG, Judge. Affirmed.
Before
Eich, C.J., Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
VERGERONT,
J. Marvin Hereford appeals from a
judgment convicting him of first-degree intentional homicide while possessing a
dangerous weapon contrary to §§ 940.01(1) and 939.63(1)(a)2, Stats., and from an order denying his
motion for a new trial. Hereford was
convicted after a retrial following a mistrial. He appeals on these grounds:
(1) the trial court misused its discretion and erred as a matter of law
in admitting the testimony of Ella Brown to prove identity under § 904.04,
Stats.;[1]
(2) § 906.13(1), Stats.,[2]
does not permit or require the disclosure of a defense investigator's reports
of witness interviews; and (3) disclosure of the reports violated his
Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
We
affirm the convictions. We conclude, on
different grounds than did the trial court, that Ella Brown's testimony was
properly admitted. We also conclude
that although certain reports of witness interviews were erroneously ordered
disclosed under § 906.13, Stats.,
that error was not prejudicial and did not violate Hereford's right to counsel.
OTHER ACTS
EVIDENCE
Background
Hereford
was charged with the first-degree intentional homicide of Frank Gurley, who was
shot outside a Beloit tavern.
Hereford's defense was that someone else, Darren Isabell, shot Gurley. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the
jury informed the trial court that it could not reach a decision.
During
the first trial, the State sought to introduce the testimony of Ella Brown,
Hereford's grandmother. The trial court
denied the State's request to introduce Brown's testimony, but permitted the
State to make an offer of proof later in the trial. In that offer of proof, Brown testified that sometime before the
shooting, she found a gun beneath a bed in the guest room of her home. She put the gun in a drawer. Sometime later, she noticed it was not in the
drawer. Then, approximately three weeks
before the shooting, when she was driving Hereford's car and came to an abrupt
stop, the same gun she had found in her home slid out from under the front seat
of the car. She confronted Hereford
about the gun and he told her not to be concerned about it. Brown told Hereford she should throw the gun
in the river, but she did not do that.
Brown described the gun as small, silver, and missing a clip. The State argued that this testimony was
admissible to show opportunity and to show that Hereford had a small caliber
handgun fitting the description of the murder weapon a week or weeks before the
murder.
At
the close of testimony in the first trial, following the State's rebuttal
witnesses, the court concluded that the offered testimony of Ella Brown was
relevant, but that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice to the defense.
Before
the second trial, the court heard Hereford's motion in limine regarding the
State's desire to reintroduce Brown's testimony. At this hearing, the trial court inaccurately recalled that the
State had offered the evidence only in its case-in-chief in the first trial and
that, had the State done so in rebuttal, it would have allowed the testimony
because it went to the identity of the assailant. The court did not rule on the
motion at that time. But, when the
State offered Brown's testimony in the rebuttal phase of the second trial, the
court ruled it admissible. The State's
argument was essentially the same as at the first trial. The State argued that Brown's testimony was
relevant because it showed Hereford in possession of a gun similar to the
murder weapon one to three weeks before the shooting. According to the State, Brown's testimony went to identity and
opportunity.
Hereford's
counsel pointed out to the court that the same testimony was offered by the
State in rebuttal at the first trial and was excluded. Counsel argued that the court could not
reverse its prior ruling, that it had prejudged the issue, and that the
evidence was not admissible under § 904.04(2), Stats.
The
trial court ruled that Brown's testimony was relevant because it went to the
identity of the person who shot Gurley, which was the central issue in the
trial. The court decided that the
probative value of the evidence outweighed the prejudicial effect. In making this ruling, the court recognized
that it came to a different conclusion at the first trial.
Brown
testified in person at the second trial as part of the State's rebuttal. Her testimony was substantially the same as
that offered, but not received, at the first trial. At the close of the trial, the court offered to give a limiting
instruction to the jury regarding the proper use of Brown's testimony. Hereford opposed a limiting instruction and
none was given.
The
decision of whether to admit or exclude evidence is within the trial court's
discretion. Johnson v. Agoncillo,
183 Wis.2d 143, 154, 515 N.W.2d 508, 513 (Ct. App. 1994). We will not reverse such a discretionary
determination where it has a reasonable basis and was made in accordance with
accepted legal standards and the facts of record. Id.
Hereford
argues that the trial court misused its discretion because it suggested a
ground for admissibility of Brown's testimony based on an erroneous belief of
the record. We find no merit to this
claim.
As
the State concedes, the trial court was mistaken in thinking that it had
excluded the testimony because the State had offered it as part of its
case-in-chief. While under that
misimpression, the trial court asked the prosecutor: "The State chose not to use it, apparently by rebuttal? Doesn't it go to identity?" The prosecutor answered that it did. The trial court then went on to indicate why
it felt the testimony went to identity and that it would have allowed the
testimony for rebuttal at the first trial, still under the mistaken impression.
We
do not read this interchange as indicating that the trial court advocated for
the State, as Hereford contends. The
court simply tried to recall what it did and why when this issue came up at the
first trial. We see no significance in
the fact that the trial court was initially mistaken about the basis for its
first ruling. The important point is
that when the trial court later ruled that Brown's testimony was admissible, it
had an accurate understanding of the basis for its first ruling. After discussing in detail the testimony of
other witnesses that made Brown's testimony relevant, it concluded,
"Apparently, I didn't feel it was at the time of the first trial, but upon
reflection and upon the entire record here, I think its probative value exists
and that the prejudicial effect is not outweighed by its probative value
[sic]."
Hereford
concedes that a trial court has the discretion to change its rulings. But he argues that the trial court misused
that discretion because, although it explained the reasons for its new ruling,
it did not explain what was wrong with the first ruling. We do not agree. If the new ruling on the admissibility of Brown's testimony has a
reasonable basis and is supported by the facts of record and the proper legal
analysis, we will sustain the new ruling.
We conclude the trial court's decision to admit Brown's testimony meets
this standard.
Permissible Purpose
All testimony must be
relevant to be admissible and, generally, relevant testimony is
admissible. Section 904.02, Stats.
Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence
of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable than it would be without the evidence. Section 904.01, Stats. However, even if relevant, testimony of a
person's other acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in
order to show the person acted in conformity therewith. Section 904.04(2), Stats. But such
testimony is admissible for other purposes.
Section 904.04(2) lists these other purposes: "proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." This list is not exclusive, but rather
illustrative. State v. Shillcutt,
116 Wis.2d 227, 236, 341 N.W.2d 716, 720 (Ct. App. 1983), aff'd, 119
Wis.2d 788, 350 N.W.2d 686 (1984). If a
trial court determines that testimony of other acts is relevant for a purpose
not prohibited by § 904.04(2), then it must determine whether the probative
value of the testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice. State v. Bedker,
149 Wis.2d 257, 266, 440 N.W.2d 802, 805 (Ct. App. 1989); § 904.03, Stats.
Hereford
concedes for purposes of argument that Brown's testimony was relevant. But he argues that the trial court erred in
deciding the testimony was evidence of Hereford's identity. We agree with Hereford that Brown's
testimony is not evidence of his identity in that it does not relate the type
of unique actions by Hereford that would carry his imprint and therefore serve
to identify him as the person who killed Gurley. Cf. Whitty v. State, 34 Wis.2d 278, 295, 149
N.W.2d 557, 564 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 959 (1968) (testimony
that defendant had enticed another child into a basement to look for a lost
rabbit admissible for the purpose of identifying the defendant as the assailant
of the child victim in present case).
However, we conclude Brown's testimony is nevertheless admissible
because it was relevant for purposes other than to prove Hereford's character.
The
State's case included testimony that Hereford said, "I am going to get my
shit" as he headed for the car moments before the shooting, and testimony
that Hereford was seen leaning into his car before the shooting and then
walking away from his car with what appeared to be a gun. Two witnesses for the State, relatives of
Gurley, testified that they saw Hereford walking toward the spot where the
shooting took place carrying a gun and saw Hereford fire the gun. Another witness testified that she was in a
car parked behind Hereford's car, and just before the shooting she saw Hereford
lean into his car. The passenger in the
car parked behind Hereford's car testified that Hereford returned, threw a gun
into their car, entered their car and told them to take him to the lagoon. The passenger handed the gun back to
Hereford and that was the last either the driver or the passenger saw of
it. Their testimony was that Hereford
got out of the car at the lagoon and then got back in.
Testimony
that Hereford had a gun in his car three weeks before the shooting that was
similar to the gun that killed Gurley is probative for a number of
purposes. A jury could reasonably
conclude from that evidence that Hereford had a gun in his car on the night of
the shooting. That, together with the
testimony that Hereford went to his car before the shooting, is evidence that
Hereford had the means to commit the crime.
The
reasonable inferences a jury could draw from Brown's testimony, in conjunction
with the testimony that Hereford went to his car announcing, "I am going
to get my shit" and returned to the scene, is also probative of Hereford's
intent. This is evidence that Hereford
made a deliberate decision to go to his car to get his gun, which tends to make
it more probable that Hereford intended to shoot someone and less probable that
the shooting was spontaneous. The State
is not precluded from submitting evidence on intent even though the defense
theory was that Hereford did not shoot Gurley.
See State v. Clark, 179 Wis.2d 484, 494, 507 N.W.2d
172, 175 (Ct. App. 1993) (intent is an issue and other acts evidence is
admissible on intent even though the defense theory is that injuries were not
caused by the defendant).[3]
Brown's
testimony also provides an explanation for the otherwise ambiguous comment,
"I'm going to get my shit," and the otherwise ambiguous movement of
Hereford leaning into his car.
Testimony of other acts for the purpose of providing the background or
context of a case is not prohibited by § 904.04(2), Stats.
Shillcutt, 116 Wis.2d at 236, 341 N.W.2d at 720.
Hereford
suggests that because the trial court found that Brown's testimony went to the
identity of Hereford, we may not find it admissible for other purposes. That is incorrect. Where the trial court has applied a mistaken view of the law, we
will not reverse if the facts and their application to the proper legal
analysis support the trial court's conclusion.
State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis.2d 226, 250, 421 N.W.2d 77, 87
(1988). Here, the trial court reviewed
the testimony of other witnesses that, in the trial court's view, made Brown's testimony
relevant. The trial court was correct
in concluding that Brown's testimony was relevant for a purpose other than the
impermissible purpose of character. It
was incorrect to call this other purpose "identity." However, because its conclusion was based on
facts of record and is supported by a legal analysis that correctly identifies
other permissible purposes for the testimony, we sustain the trial court's
discretionary determination that Brown's testimony is not inadmissible under
§ 904.04(2), Stats.
Prejudice
We
now consider whether the trial court misused its discretion in deciding that
the probative value of Brown's testimony was not substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice.
Hereford's argument here is that the hung jury in the first case and the
conviction in the second case demonstrate that Hereford was greatly prejudiced
by Brown's testimony because that was the only significant difference in the
testimony at the two trials. We reject
Hereford's claim that this demonstrates unfair prejudice and the trial court's
misuse of its discretion.
In
the context of other acts evidence, prejudice refers to the potential harm in a
jury concluding that because an actor committed one bad act, he or she
necessarily committed the crime charged.
Clark, 179 Wis.2d at 496, 507 N.W.2d at 177. The fact that other acts testimony weakens
the defense's theory of the case does not make it unfairly prejudicial.[4] Id. at 496, 507 N.W.2d at
176-77. The critical inquiry here is to
what degree did Brown's testimony have the potential to influence the jury by
an improper means--the suggestion that because there was a gun under the seat of
Hereford's car within three weeks of the shooting, Hereford must have shot
Gurley. We think the trial court could
reasonably conclude that the potential for a jury to make this assumption is
not so great as to outweigh the probative value of Brown's testimony.[5]
DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR'S
INTERVIEW SUMMARIES
Background
Steven Thurner is an
investigator employed by the state public defender's office. At the request of Hereford's trial counsel,
he interviewed potential witnesses.
Thurner took notes during the interviews and then dictated a report,
titled an "Investigation Report," on each interview from his
notes. He prepared over seventy
investigation reports for Hereford's two trials.
Before
the first trial, the prosecution requested production of those investigation
reports for all witnesses who were going to testify. Hereford's counsel objected, claiming they were work
product. The court denied the request
for pretrial disclosure, stating that it would rule on disclosure on a
witness-by-witness basis at trial.
During the first trial, the court ordered defense counsel to provide the
State with reports concerning approximately fourteen witnesses. Defense counsel complied while continuing to
object and moving for a mistrial. These
witnesses fall into these categories:
(1) witnesses where defense counsel asked about interviews with Thurner
either on direct or cross-examination, (2) defense witnesses where defense
counsel did not ask questions about interviews with Thurner, but was ordered to
turn over Thurner's reports after direct examination, (3) defense
witnesses where defense counsel was ordered to turn over reports before the
witness testified, and (4) state witnesses where defense counsel asked the
state witness on cross-examination if the witness had a conversation with
another witness.
Hereford
filed a motion in limine in the second trial which, the State appears to
concede, preserved a continuing objection to disclosure of Thurner's
reports. At the second trial, the court
ordered Hereford's counsel to provide the prosecution with Thurner's interview
report on Sharri Bradley after the defense had examined her on direct without
asking about the interview.[6] Defense counsel objected but the court
reaffirmed its ruling that Thurner's interviews of all persons who were to be
witnesses were to be provided to the defense.
The prosecution used Thurner's interview of Bradley to cross-examine
her.
During
the second trial, the prosecution used Thurner's reports provided in the first
trial to cross-examine a number of defense witnesses where defense counsel did
not refer to the interview on direct examination in the second trial. The prosecution also used Thurner's
interview of Ella Brown in direct examination.[7] Defense counsel questioned some defense
witnesses on direct examination about Thurner's interviews with them and at
least one of the State's witnesses on cross-examination.
At
the close of testimony, Hereford moved for a mistrial on the ground that the
prosecution had improperly been given access to Thurner's reports in the first
trial, thereby allowing the prosecution to use these to prepare for and use in
the examination of witnesses in the second trial. The court denied the motion, concluding that the reports were
statements made by witnesses and therefore were relevant.
Hereford's
motion for a new trial on this ground was also denied. The trial court ruled that disclosure of the
statements of witnesses who were going to testify was proper under
§ 906.13, Stats., but that
even if this were error, it did not result in prejudice to Hereford.
Application of § 906.13(1), Stats.
Hereford
argues that § 906.13, Stats.,
does not apply in criminal trials and that Thurner's interviews are not
statements under § 906.13(1). He also
contends that even if § 906.13(1) applies, the court's orders went beyond
what is permitted by that statute.
The
interpretation of § 906.13, Stats.,
presents a question of law, which we decide de novo without deference to
the trial court's determination. See
Tahtinen v. MSI Ins. Co., 122 Wis.2d 158, 166, 361 N.W.2d 673,
677 (1985). We conclude that
§ 906.13 does apply in criminal proceedings and that Thurner's reports of
interviews are statements within the meaning of § 906.13(1). However, we also conclude that the trial
court erred in ordering that Hereford's counsel provide the prosecution with
reports of witness interviews as to all witnesses who had not yet been examined
by the defense concerning the interview.
Section
911.01(2), Stats., provides that
chs. 901 to 911, Stats., apply
generally to civil and criminal proceedings.
The listed exceptions are not applicable here. See § 911.01(4).
Our supreme court and this court have applied § 906.13(1), Stats., in criminal cases. See, e.g., State v. Echols,
175 Wis.2d 653, 674-77, 499 N.W.2d 631, 637-38, cert. denied, 114 S. Ct.
246 (1993); State v. Pulizzano, 148 Wis.2d 190, 195, 434 N.W.2d
807, 809-10 (Ct. App. 1988), aff'd, 155 Wis.2d 633, 456 N.W.2d 325
(1990). Hereford nonetheless argues
that § 906.13(1) does not apply in criminal cases because § 971.24(1),
Stats., "supersedes"
§ 906.13(1). This argument is
premised in part on his contention that the definition of "statement"
is the same in both statutes, making § 906.13(1) superfluous in criminal
proceedings.
Section
971.24, Stats., is part of ch.
971, Stats., entitled
"Criminal Procedure." Section
971.24(1) requires that at trial, before a witness other than the defendant
testifies, "written or phonographically recorded statements of the
witness, if any, shall be given to the other party in the absence of the
jury." Section 906.13(1), Stats., requires that a prior statement
made by a witness, "whether written or not," must be disclosed to
opposing counsel only upon opposing counsel's request and only after the
witness has been examined concerning the statement.
Section
971.24, Stats., is a discovery
statute and § 906.13, Stats.,
is an evidentiary statute. They each
serve a different purpose. The purpose
of disclosure under § 906.13(1) is to make sure the statement on which the
witness is examined was in fact made and is not misrepresented by counsel in
the examination of the witness.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1974, § 906.13, Stats.
Section 971.24, on the other hand, serves the purpose of providing
opposing counsel with prior statements of a witness in order to test whether
the witness's testimony is consistent and accurate. Pohl v. State, 96 Wis.2d 290, 310, 291 N.W.2d 554,
563 (1980).
In
addition to serving different purposes, the language relating to
"statement" in each statute is different. Statements of the witness under § 971.24, Stats., must be "written or
phonographically recorded." This
requirement has been interpreted strictly.
It does not apply to notes of defense counsel of interviews with witnesses. Pohl, 96 Wis.2d at 311, 291
N.W.2d at 564. The State agrees with
Hereford that Thurner's reports of witness interviews are not statements of
witnesses under § 971.24.
Section
906.13(1), Stats., on the other
hand, applies to the prior statement of the witness "whether written or
not." There is no limiting
language describing the nonwritten statement in § 906.13(1), as there is
in § 971.24, Stats. "Statement" is defined in
§ 908.01(1), Stats., as
"an oral or written assertion or ... nonverbal conduct of a person, if it
is intended by the person as an assertion." This same definition in the federal rules of evidence has been
used to define "statement" in the federal counterpart to
§ 906.13, Fed. R. Evid.
613. United States v. Praetorius,
622 F.2d 1054, 1065 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied sub nom. Lebel v. United
States, 449 U.S. 860 (1980).
Federal cases may provide persuasive guidance to the proper application
of a state statute copied from federal law.
State v. Gudenschwager, 191 Wis.2d 432, 440, 529 N.W.2d
225, 228 (1995). We conclude that the
definition of "statement" in § 908.01(1) applies to
§ 906.13(1).
This
broader definition of statement in § 906.13, Stats., is consistent with the differing purposes of each
statute. The narrower definition under
§ 971.24, Stats., ensures
that before disclosure the statement has the necessary indicia of reliability
in the form of "accuracy, completeness and authenticity." Pohl, 96 Wis.2d at 311, 291
N.W.2d at 564. The broader definition
under § 906.13(1) ensures that any time a witness is examined about a
statement attributed to him or her, opposing counsel has the opportunity to see
the statement to make sure examining counsel is not making misleading
insinuations about the existence or contents of the statement. Since §§ 971.24 and 906.13(1) serve
different purposes and contain different definitions of "statement,"
§ 971.24 does not "supersede" § 906.13(1) in criminal
cases. Both apply.
We
have examined Thurner's reports of witness interviews and conclude they meet
the definition of prior statements of witnesses under § 906.13(1), Stats.
They are lengthy and detailed accounts of what the witnesses told
Thurner. Neither party called Thurner
to testify at the second trial.
Instead, they stipulated that:
[I]f called to testify [Thurner] would testify at the
request of the defense he prepared investigative reports from notes made
contemporaneously with his interviews of witnesses and his investigative
reports are accurate summaries, paraphrasings of the entire witness interview. His notes are reduced to a written report,
usually within an hour of the interview or as soon as thereafter as possible.
Hereford
appears to argue that Thurner's reports cannot be statements under
§ 906.13(1), Stats., because
they may mistakenly report what a witness said, unlike a transcript of a
recording. However, as we explain in
more detail below, § 906.13(1)
requires disclosure of Thurner's report of a witness interview only if
Hereford's counsel has first examined a witness about a statement made to
Thurner. When Hereford's counsel relies
on the accuracy of Thurner's report to examine a witness about a statement made
to Thurner, there is no basis for Hereford to claim that he should not have to
disclose the report after the examination because it does not accurately report
what the witness said.
Although
Thurner's report of a witness interview is a statement under § 906.13(1), Stats., Hereford is not required to
disclose it unless and until his counsel has examined the witness concerning
statements made to Thurner (and the prosecution requests disclosure). At the first trial, the court ordered at
least eleven of Thurner's reports turned over to the prosecution when the
witnesses had not been examined by defense counsel about their statements to
Thurner. The court based these rulings,
variously, on the fact that the witness had testified, the fact that the
witness was going to testify, the fact that someone else had testified he knew
or had conversations with the witness, and the fact that defense counsel had
the reports. None of these are grounds
for requiring disclosure under § 906.13(1) when the witness has not been
examined about his or her prior statement.
At
the second trial, apparently the only two reports ordered disclosed that had
not been made available in the first trial were those concerning Brown and
Crystal Bradley. This also was
error. The defense had not questioned
either about their statements to Thurner on its direct examination. The prosecution was therefore not entitled
to disclosure of Thurner's reports of his interviews with these two
witnesses.
The
State cites two cases, United States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207 (7th
Cir. 1987), and United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975), in
support of its position that it was entitled to the reports before the witness
was examined by the defense about a prior statement made to Thurner and even if
the witness was never examined by the defense about a prior statement made to
Thurner. In Marks,
defense counsel examined a witness about prior statements made in a written
report of an FBI investigator. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it was within
the trial court's discretion to order that the report be shown to the witness
in spite of the language in Fed. R.
Evid. 613(a) (also in § 906.13(1), Stats.) that the statement need not be shown to the
witness. The critical point in Marks,
ignored by the State, is that the witness was being examined about a prior
statement.
In
Nobles, the trial court did not order defense counsel to disclose
the defense investigator's report at the time defense counsel cross-examined a
witness about statements made to the investigator. The court did, however, rule that the defense investigator could
not testify about his interviews of witnesses for the purpose of impeaching
those witnesses unless the reports of those interviews were produced. The United States Supreme Court held that
this ruling did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against
compulsory self-incrimination, federal discovery rules, or the work product
doctrine. Nobles, 422
U.S. at 234-40. In Nobles,
as in Marks, the witness had been examined about his prior
statement.
Harmless Error Analysis
Having
determined that the trial court erred in ordering disclosure of a number of
Thurner's reports, we must determine whether the error affected a substantial
right of Hereford. Section 805.18(2), Stats.
If there is no reasonable possibility that a different result would have
been reached had the prosecutor in the second trial not had the reports that
were erroneously ordered produced, the error is harmless and Hereford is not
entitled to reversal of his convictions.
See State v. Dyess, 124 Wis.2d 525, 543, 370 N.W.2d
222, 231-32 (1985).
Hereford
makes a general argument that because the State had the reports as a result of
erroneous rulings at the first trial, it had the opportunity to study them and
incorporate them into its presentation at the second trial. This was obviously prejudicial, Hereford
claims, because there were convictions at the second trial but not the
first.
All
of the reports that were erroneously ordered produced were produced during the
first trial, with the exception of the report on Brown, who did not testify at
the first trial, and Bradley. The
prosecution had the use of the reports to cross-examine witnesses during the
first trial and, in some cases, obtained the reports well in advance of the
witnesses' testimony. Nevertheless,
there was a hung jury at the first trial.
We will therefore not presume that access to the reports that were
erroneously ordered disclosed in the first trial was the cause of the
convictions in the second trial.
Instead, we examine the use of the reports at the second trial to
determine whether there is a reasonable possibility the results at the second
trial would have been different had the State not used the reports.
We
begin by noting that no defense investigative reports were disclosed concerning
the two witnesses, Annie Williams and Nathaniel Perry, who testified they saw
Hereford shoot Gurley, or the two witnesses, Jennifer Cooper and Cory Davidson,
who testified Hereford came to their car seconds after the shooting, dropped a
gun in the car, and told them to drive to the lagoon, where he left the car for
a few minutes. Also, no report was
disclosed concerning the officer who apprehended Hereford the day after the
murder, who testified that Hereford said he had been "expecting
it."
Only
two of the reports disclosed to the prosecution involved prosecution
witnesses--Demetrius Curry and Brown.
Curry was the witness who testified that he heard Hereford say, "I
am going to get my shit" as he walked toward his car. Curry told this to the police officer who took
his statement and to Thurner. Thurner's
report on his interview with Curry was properly ordered disclosed at the first
trial because defense counsel had cross-examined him about his statements to
Thurner. Defense counsel did so again
at the second trial.
At
the second trial, Brown's testimony was the same as that provided in the offer
of proof on the significant points--that she had found a gun similar to that
used in the murder in a bedroom of her house and in Hereford's car some weeks
before the murder. The prosecution used
her prior testimony and her statement to a police officer to impeach her and to
refresh her recollection. The
prosecution used Thurner's report to ask her whether the gun struck her foot
when it slid from under the car seat and to ask about her description of the
gun. The questions based on Thurner's
report did not make her testimony more damaging to the defense or more helpful
to the prosecution in any significant manner.
Hereford
points to the testimony of the defense witness, Cecilia Lomax-Flannigan, as an
example of how access to the reports before the second trial prejudiced the
defense at the second trial.
Lomax-Flannigan testified at the second trial that she saw Darren Isabell
with a gun in his hand about the time Gurley was shot and near the location at
which Gurley was shot. This information
was also contained in a statement she gave to a police officer and in Thurner's
report on his interview with her. The
most persuasive attack on her credibility was the prosecution's use of her
statement to the police officer indicating that the gun in Isabell's hand was
larger than the gun that shot Gurley.
The prosecution used Thurner's report to impeach her testimony on more
minor points. The defense used
Thurner's report to rehabilitate Lomax-Flannigan, particularly on the issue of
the size of the gun Isabell had. Of
course, in any event, defense counsel would have had to produce Thurner's
report after questioning Lomax-Flannigan about it on redirect. Giving Hereford the benefit of the
assumption that defense counsel would not have used Thurner's report in its
redirect examination had the prosecution not already used it on
cross-examination, we conclude that the prosecution's use of the report did not
significantly affect the value of Lomax-Flannigan's testimony for the defense.
We
have examined the testimony of the other witnesses with whom the prosecution
used reports that should not have been disclosed because Hereford's counsel had
not first questioned the witnesses on statements made to Thurner. In many cases the reports corroborated
information already elicited by the prosecution. The impeachment use of the reports was on points that did not
have a significant impact on the central issue: did Hereford or someone else
shoot Gurley? We conclude there is no
reasonable possibility that the outcome of the second trial would have been
different had the State not had access to the reports that were erroneously
ordered disclosed.[8]
Right to Counsel
Hereford contends that
Thurner's reports were his attorney's work product[9]
and their compulsory disclosure interfered with the ability of his counsel to
present a defense, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The
work product doctrine does not protect against disclosure at trial when the
attorney makes testimonial use of the work product. Nobles, 422 U.S. at 239 n.14. Assuming for purposes of argument that the
reports that were erroneously ordered disclosed under § 906.13(1), Stats., did not lose work product
protection,[10] we conclude
that the compelled disclosure did not violate Hereford's right to counsel.
Hereford
relies on Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985), in arguing that
his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. In Moulton, the Court held that the defendant's
Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the admission of defendant's
incriminating statements, which the prosecution obtained by knowingly
circumventing the defendant's right to have counsel present. There is no similarity between the conduct
of the prosecution in Moulton and the prosecution in this
case. The prosecution here obtained the
reports pursuant to court order, not by improperly communicating with
Hereford. No reports concerning
Hereford were involved. Kastigar
v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), and United States v. North,
910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 941 (1991), on
which Hereford also relies, are inapposite as well. These cases concern the prohibition against the use of immunized
testimony and have no application here.
By
the Court.—Judgment and order
affirmed.
[1] Section 904.04(2), Stats., provides:
Evidence of other
crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in
order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. This subsection does not exclude the
evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity,
intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or
accident.
[2] Section 906.13(1), Stats., provides:
In examining a witness
concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the
statement need not be shown or its contents disclosed to the witness at that
time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel
upon the completion of that part of the examination.
[3] We reject the State's argument that Brown's
testimony goes to intent because a jury could reasonably conclude that Hereford
kept the gun in the car "precisely for situations like this when he felt
the need to use it." We agree with
Hereford that it is an impermissible use of other acts testimony to infer from
the fact of having a gun in his car that he intended to shoot or kill Gurley.
[4] The trial court properly recognized this when
it stated that anything that would go to prove the possible guilt of the
defendant, of course, is prejudicial in the broad sense. The court then correctly stated the test as
whether the admission of the testimony is so unduly prejudicial as to outweigh
its probative value.
[5] The trial court offered to give a limiting
instruction that testimony concerning the gun in Hereford's car before the date
of the shooting could not be considered as evidence that Hereford had a certain
character or was a bad person and therefore is guilty of the charged offense. The proposed instruction stated that the
evidence could only be considered on the issue of identity, that is
"whether the prior conduct of the defendant tends to identify the
defendant as to whether or not he committed the offense." Defense counsel, without explanation,
stated, in response to the court's question, that she did not want the proposed
instruction or any other limiting instruction given. Generally such an instruction is considered to cure unfair prejudice. State v. Clark, 179 Wis.2d
484, 497, 507 N.W.2d 172, 177 (Ct. App. 1993).
On appeal, Hereford argues that because Brown's testimony did not go to
identity, his objection to the proposed instruction does not prevent him from
challenging the court's evidentiary ruling.
We agree. Hereford is not
arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in not giving any limiting
instruction or in not giving an alternative one requested by him.
[7] Apparently defense counsel provided this
report pursuant to the court's ruling at the beginning of the second trial.
[8] Hereford did not identify any witness besides
Lomax-Flannigan. The State identified
seven other defense witnesses with whom it used Thurner's reports in its
examination when the defense had not first examined the witness on statements
to Thurner: Sharri Bradley, Darren
Isabell, Tracey Vance, Charles Herd, James Jones, Terry Hatchett, and Leon
Davidson. Hereford did not add any
names to this list in his reply brief.
[10] The State cites Shaw v. Wuttke,
28 Wis.2d 448, 456, 137 N.W.2d 649, 653 (1965), for the proposition that all
work product protection is lost at trial.
However, the precise holding in Shaw was that the immunity
accorded an attorney's work product with respect to a written statement ceases
to exist when the person making the statement is placed on the stand as a
witness at trial. The reasoning of the Shaw
court is that by becoming a witness, the person subjects himself or herself to
the risks of impeachment and the attorney has had the benefit of the work
product. Shaw, 28 Wis.2d
at 456, 137 N.W.2d at 653. The later
case of Long v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 67 Wis.2d
384, 392, 227 N.W.2d 67, 71 (1975), held that Shaw did not apply
because the work product involved was an attorney's notes on a witness
interview, not a written statement signed by the witness. Also, the court held, the attorney had not
yet had the benefit of the work product because the trial had not yet
started. According to the court, the
attorney might yet choose to settle the case or not to call the person
interviewed as a witness. Id.