State v. Agee

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration and argues that the court erred in affirming his judgment of conviction for aggravated murder when it held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecutor’s extensive cross-examination of a witness despite Defendant’s first objection. The prosecution cross-examined a witness who was initially resistant, but once he started answering questions, the prosecution extracted most of his substantive testimony, which was beyond the scope of the hearing to determine whether the witness would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. By Defendant’s second objection, the prosecution had already extracted information about the murder and as the questioning went on, it essentially constituted an impermissible pretrial deposition. This Court held that at Defendant’s second objection, the trial court erred by overruling the objection to the continued questioning. The first objection was properly decided because Defendant waived it. Defendant objected the first time when the prosecution began to ask about the witness’s gang involvement. During the trial, the defendant conceded that the prosecution had reason to ensure that the witness would testify about his gang involvement, effectively waiving his first objection. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.