State v. Hill, 2404
| Decision Date | 24 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2404,2404 |
| Citation | 109 Ariz. 93,505 P.2d 553 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles Victor HILL, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Louis A. Moore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Gibson & Gibson by Franklin K. Gibson, Phoenix, for appellant.
Defendant, Charles Victor Hill, appeals from his conviction of the crime of robbery. He was sentenced to five to six years in the state prison, after a guilty verdict by a jury. He contends that error was committed when the trial court admitted 'certain questions propounded by the prosecutor.'
The robber grabbed the victim's purse and ran. The crime took place at 8:30 p.m. in a South Phoenix shopping center which was well lighted, both inside and outside the buildings. Positive identification was made by the victim and a bystander, both from a group of photographs and in court. The defense was alibi.
The first witness for the defense was James Hill, defendant's brother, who testified that defendant was at the Neal home in the presence of six other persons, continuously from 7:00 to 11:00 on the night of the robbery. Cross-examination naturally covered the activities of the witness during the whole day in an effort to see how good his memory was and whether any contradictions would develop. The responses of the witness were somewhat vague and not entirely satisfactory. Part of the dialogue between him and the prosecutor was as follows:
'Q . . . And what did you do between 1:00 and 1:30 til 2:00?
'A . . . I got up and went messing around playing basketball and stuff like that.
'Q You don't know where you were messing around here, just there and everywhere?
A Yes.
'Q Where were you about 4:00 o'clock that afternoon?
'A Messing around.
'Q Do you know where?
'A No.
'Q Do you know with whom?
'A Well, a guy named James Jenkins, I know--I remember being around with hom . . .
'Q Where were you about 5:00 o'clock?
'A I was messing around.
'Q Were you at home?
'A No.
'Q How about 5:30, where were you then?
'A Still out.
'Q But you weren't home?
'A No.
* * *
* * *
'Q Do you remember talking to me I believe up here--down at the county attorney's office just before the last time I had you testify, testify like this for the record, and do you remember telling me at that particular time that you were home all afternoon?
'A Well I have it written down and I recall that you said you were home all afternoon.'
In rebuttal, no attempt was made to prove that James Hill had told the prosecutor anything in conflict with the testimony. However, the prosecution called Officer Altfeltis, but after a few innocuous questions, court was recessed and some sort of proceedings were had off the record in chambers, near the end of which the judge announced:
'It is ordered denying the motion for a mistrial made on behalf of defendant during the testimony of James Hill . . .'
Defendant's first argument is that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach James Hill by questions designed to prove that he had made prior inconsistent statements to the prosecutor himself. Defendant refers to this as impeachment by insinuation and correctly points out that in State v. Singleton, 66 Ariz. 49, 182 P.2d 920, we held:
'But when, as here, such questioning is raised and then dropped with no further attempt on the part of the State to prove its point, . . . we believe it to be wholly improper and highly prejudicial. . . . If the questions were persistent enough and cleverly enough framed, no amount of denial on the part of a defendant would be able to erase the impression in the mind of the jury that the prosecutor actually had such facts at hand and that probably there was some truth to the insinuations. . . .
* * *
* * *
'(O)ur court has laid down the rule that no prosecuting officer, in order to impeach a witness, can engage in such questioning without being prepared and able to prove the insinuations. . . .' 66 Ariz. at 65, 182 P.2d at 930.
The reasons are clear. First,
'(A) person on trial charged with a particular crime should not be required to defend against every possible aspersion which may be made against him but which is in no way connected with the issue to be determined.' Ibid. at 64, 182 P.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roque
...not clearly insert the prestige of the government into the jury's credibility assessment, unlike the statement in State v. Hill, 109 Ariz. 93, 95, 505 P.2d 553, 555 (1973). Furthermore, Roque did not object to the statement, so the trial court had no opportunity to correct any possible impr......
-
State v. Tovar
...constituted improper cross-examination by insinuation and was prejudicial to him under the circumstances. See State v. Hill, 109 Ariz. 93, 94-5, 505 P.2d 553, 554-5 (1973); Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 45, pp. Appellant and Joseph were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted. Joseph was......
-
State v. Kelly
...with whether the defendant has committed prior felonies, the bar to such cross-examination operates with far less force. State v. Hill, 109 Ariz. 93, 505 P.2d 553 (1973). In the context of this record and in view of the particular circumstances under which the questions were asked, we hold ......
-
State v. Brydges
...impermissible personal opinions as to the credence to be given to the witnesses' testimony or facts before the jury, State v. Hill, 109 Ariz. 93, 505 P.2d 553 (1973); State v. Cortez, 101 Ariz. 214, 418 P.2d 370 (1966). The statements, and the context in which they were made, clearly focus ......