 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freeman v. State3/27/2002
ssaulting J.I. in 1995 and that Edwards was on probation at the time of the shootings. Trooper Glick also testified he did not ask Edwards about his whereabouts the night of the shootings.
Furthermore, during closing, Freeman reminded the jury that Edwards was convicted of assaulting J.I. in 1995 and that he was still on probation for that assault when J.I. was killed. He pointed out that Trooper Glick failed to adequately investigate Edwards as a possible suspect and failed to ask Edwards about his whereabouts the night of the shootings.
Judge Link did not abuse his discretion in limiting Freeman's ability to introduce evidence that Edwards may have committed the killings. While presumably Edwards had both the motive to kill J.I. (because of the 1995 conviction) and the opportunity to kill J.I. (because his whereabouts were unknown), no evidence linked Edwards to the Freeman residence or to the shootings. Also, Freeman failed to present any evidence that Edwards had seen or been near J.I. or Martin in the several weeks prior to the shooting. We conclude that Judge Link did not err in restricting Freeman's evidence that purportedly implicated Edwards. We note that Freeman was able to present a foundation to argue his theory through his cross-examination of Trooper Glick.
4. Martin
On appeal, Freeman argues that Judge Link prevented him from presenting evidence that Martin was a prime suspect because Judge Link denied him access to Martin's psychological records and Link rejected Toppa's testimony. This argument is addressed above. A review of the record shows Freeman made an offer of proof that Martin could be a potential suspect for the purposes of jury voir dire. It appears that Freeman made this offer of proof to allow himself the ability to ask the potential jurors if they believed a seven-year-old could be capable of murder. However, once the jury was empaneled, Freeman never argued Martin as a potential suspect. Freeman therefore failed to preserve this argument below.
Judge Link's Decision to Allow the State to Present Evidence That Freeman had Committed a Prior Act of Domestic Violence Against J.I.
At trial, the state introduced evidence that approximately two months before the murders, Freeman shot at a stereo in the house to lower the noise level of a party J.I. was having. On appeal, Freeman argues that the incident was not a crime of domestic violence under AS 18.66.990(3) and thus, not admissible under Rule 404(b)(4).
The state called Nila Barjheron, Freeman's sister, who testified that Freeman told her one night approximately six weeks before the shootings that Freeman was awakened by a noisy party and "put a bullet in the stereo" to turn it off. The conversation took place by phone immediately after the incident. Barjheron thought Freeman was intoxicated at the time. She noted that the stereo was in her possession at the time of trial and it did not have a bullet hole in it.
In his testimony, Freeman admitted to shooting a pistol in the house to quiet people down and get them to leave. He testified that he asked the people in his house several times to quiet down, they refused, so he shot the pistol into the kitchen, hitting a log next to the stereo. He said he shot the pistol once to make a loud noise and never pointed the gun at anyone in the house.
Judge Link found this to be a prior act of domestic violence, admissible under Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b)(4) because the act of firing a weapon inside a house constitutes reckless endangerment. Judge Link also found that the prior act was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
In a trial involving domestic violence,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|