 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lancaster v. State3/28/2002
evant to the issue of whether the appellant intended to kill Hanson. The two questions to Hanson, and his answers, and the two questions to the treating physician, and his answers, are actually a small part of lengthy testimony about Hanson's injuries. The direct examination of Hanson just prior to that quoted above went as follows:
Q: And then you had surgery?
A: Yeah. I had made - I got scars from here to here. Yeah.
Q: Do you know how many times you were stabbed?
A: I got one big one that goes down here, one that goes across here. I got one - stab wounds here, plus this. I got stab wounds in my shoulder. I'm - I don't know how many. I got stabbed here.
Q: You're pointing above your left eye?
A: Yeah. Right here. There is a big scar - I've still got a big knot there. I got stabbed in the head a few times, a bunch of times.
Q: How long were you in surgery; do you know?
A: I was in - the next thing - I woke - I don't know. I would say two or three hours, probably. He had to sew up - my larynx was cut in half; my liver, he put some stitches in it. My lung was nicked, and a bunch of stuff like that.
[ ] As part of this examination, in the context of the charge of attempted murder, the prosecutor's question to Hanson as to how long it took to recover from his injuries did not seek irrelevant information. While the topic of the next question--the "emotional fallout" from the incident--was irrelevant, we find that it was not unduly prejudicial to the appellant, given the nature and amount of other evidence. The same can be said of the questions to the doctor and his answers. Testimony about scarring from the many wounds may be seen as relevant, although not particularly probative, on the issue of an attempt to kill. The long-lasting effect of that scarring is probably not relevant, but neither was it unduly prejudicial. These two questions to the doctor followed lengthy questioning as to the nature and location of Hanson's injuries. This testimony was detailed and graphic, and was surely much more damaging to the appellant than any mention of scarring. The first substantive question posed to the doctor, and his answer, may suffice to reveal the context in which the "scarring" questions were asked:
Q: Would you tell the jury, if you would, how Mr. Hanson was presented to you and what the nature of his injuries were as you observed them first.
A: He was in the emergency room when I arrived there. At that time, he was seen to be covered in blood from - literally from the top of his head down to his knees. He had a number of knife wounds and stab wounds. He had one on the right forehead; had a couple on his neck; a deeper one on the right side of the neck, just below the angle of his jaw. He had one, I believe, on his right shoulder. There were two large stab wounds in the lower chest area. And he had a gunshot wound to the left neck, the base of the left neck.
With such testimony before the jury, there is no reasonable possibility that the brief testimony about long-term scarring or the emotional impact of Hanson's injuries had any effect upon the verdict. *fn12
COMMENTS ON THE APPELLANT'S VERACITY
[ ] During his direct examination of Hanson, the prosecutor twice asked whether Hanson believed something the appellant had said while Hanson, Penn, and the appellant were sitting in the appellant's apartment before the attack:
Q: Okay. What was the nature of the conversation?
A: Mr. Lancaster was telling us - I don't know. He was telling us a story about being in the armed forces and stuff like that -
Q: Did you believe his stories?
A: No, I didn't.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|