 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
hould have declared a mistrial based on Denise's testimony concerning the Dugger murder during direct and cross-examinations. He argues that the introduction of testimony concerning the Dugger case was unduly prejudicial evidence of propensity, especially in light of the fact that Dugger's body was burned in a similar manner as that of the victim in this case. We find that any error was harmless.
During direct examination, Denise Bondurant testified that she lied to the authorities when initially questioned about the victim's disappearance:
A. Whatever I did tell them, I probably lied.
Q. And why was that?
A. To try to protect my husband.
Q. And why were you trying to protect your husband, at that time Mrs. Bondurant?
A. Because I was afraid not to, because of the murder of Gwen Dugger.
Q. Well, --
MR. JERRY COLLEY:Objection, if the Court please. Now, that's wrong, and he knows it and she knows it.
Okay. Okay. I'll sustain that.
Thereafter, defense counsel cross-examined Denise extensively as to why she maintained contact with the defendant and why she did not reveal his actions to the authorities sooner. Counsel questioned Denise as to whether she was actually afraid of the defendant. As a result, the state requested a jury-out hearing concerning the issue of whether the defendant had opened the door for Denise to testify that she was afraid of the defendant because she had been present when Gwen Dugger was murdered. It appears that at some point before her testimony, the trial court had instructed Denise not to reveal the details of the Dugger murder during her testimony.
After considering argument on the matter, the trial court held that by pursuing a line of cross-examination intended to question whether Denise was actually afraid of the defendant, defense counsel opened the door to this testimony and the state should be allowed to question Denise on redirect as to why she was afraid of the defendant.
As cross-examination continued, defense counsel questioned Denise about the number of times she talked with authorities. Denise also gave the following answers that touched on the Dugger murder:
Q. Would it make any difference, Mrs. Bondurant, where they body was, if there was news about the disappearance of Gaines?
A. Well, that would give them a time limit, I guess, you know, on the police coming around, because they knew they would be back around, just like the case prior to this.
Q. Well, why didn't you leave and say, well, I've got to go back home, folks. I'm not staying here any longer, with your burned body burning out here in the yard?
A. The same reason I didn't in the Dugger case.
Q. Would you be surprised to know that in a crematorium, in order to burn a body to ashes, that it takes two-and-a-half hours at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit temperature to do that, in a confined furnace?
A. I didn't realize how long it took or what the temperature was. But in order for them to burn the body, Pat explained that he had to get the temperature really hot. That's where he used the rubber from the plant. He described it at what temperature it would burn at. But it couldn't be done in two-and-a-half hours. In two-and-a-half days, yes, he did.
Q. You just now said, I believe, he told you it took two-and-a-half days?
A. It did take two-and-a-half days. I had already witnessed one before that took two-and-a-half days.
Q. Okay. And you said that he told you that this happened on the night of the seventeenth, after they got off from
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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|