P R O C E E D I N G

[In the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 9:00 a.m., Thursday August, 24, 1995; the STATE OF GEORGIA v. MICHAEL HAROLD CHAPEL, 93-B-1818-6; Criminal Jury Trial, Judge Fred A. Bishop, Jr., presiding.]

THE COURT: Would you approach the bench, please.

[Counsel approached the bench and the following conference ensued.]

THE COURT: The deputies -- last night, our young guy, Mr. Ford, was -- I don't know whether you'd call it a diary or what which they turned up. And I guess to what extent is that a problem? And obviously, he's taking notes when he gets back to his room, writing down his impressions and what all he's seeing and hearing and transpiring in the courtroom. It appears to be in the form of a diary. And I guess the question is, is there anything objectionable about that or not?

MR. PORTER: I don't think it's objectionable. I don't think -- I think the safest course would be to bring him in and say, 'Mr. Ford, there's no problem with you keeping a diary, but you're not to communicate that to other jurors, you're not to use that in your deliberations.' You know, I think it would be a problem if he brought it into the jury and said, 'look, I've been keeping a diary the whole time.' It falls in the same category as notes.

THE COURT: Well, they all got notes, but I mean, this is after he gets back -- it's, you know --

MS. ROGAN: Yeah.

MR. PORTER: I imagine they're sitting there thinking about it anyway.

MS. ROGAN: Right. I mean, they're instructed not to talk to each other about it, but they can't really not think about it themselves. As long as he's not sharing that information with other people.

THE COURT: Well, I guess, you know, these days with the prospective book writers on juries, I don't know how this ties in with that or --

MR. SMEAL: I wonder where he picked up the idea from?

THE COURT: -- if it makes any difference, you know. I'm sort of --

MR. PORTER: Judge, once this baby's over, anybody who wants to write a book about it can write a book about it.

THE COURT: All right. Well, what do you want me to do about it, if anything?

MS. ROGAN: I might suggest giving it -- I wouldn't even necessarily single him out, but give an instruction that -- just reiterate the instruction that they're not to speak each other about the case until deliberations start or bring any -- now, what's the word -- recorded recollections into their deliberations.

MR. PORTER: Any material other than -- they will not -- they cannot bring any material other than their notes into the deliberations.

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

MR. PORTER: That they're not to use any other source.

THE COURT: What about the diary he's done so far? Do you think it ought to be returned to him or not?

MR. PORTER: I don't think there's any problem with him keeping a diary, Your Honor.

MS. ROGAN: I have a -- do you have a problem with that?

MR. MOORE: I don't. I mean, you know --

MS. ROGAN: As long as it's just kept for his personal use --

MR PORTER: And I don't have any problem with, when it's returned, that he be instructed that's for his personal use and he's not to show it to anybody and that's the condition he gets it back on. Have the bailiffs instruct him that.

THE COURT: Anybody have any objection to that?

MS. ROGAN: Do you want him spoken to directly?

MR. MOORE: What do you think?

MS. ROGAN: Well, I'm sort of two minds. Of course, I don't want to embarrass him, but on the other hand, I guess --

MR. PORTER: Well, that's why I suggested --

MS. ROGAN: -- it would be better to get the message directly to him, but --

MR. PORTER: -- when the bailiff hands it back to him and says, 'The judge says this is fine, but you're only to use it and you're not to share it.'

THE COURT: You're just suggesting don't tell him anything in the courtroom?

MR. PORTER: Unless you want to give a general instruction of 'you're allowed to keep notes and those notes are the only thing that you'll be able to take -- and notes and the evidence are the only thing that will go back in the jury room. You're not to use any other source, any other material.'

THE COURT: Yeah. Well, who knows what we'll have, you know. He's nineteen. The girl's eighteen.

MR. MOORE: I was going to say, it occurred to me that when deliberations start if they last more than one day, if he goes back and consults his diary and then comes back the next morning and says, I checked my diary last night, and --

MS. ROGAN: But they're going to have their notes with them anyway.

MR. PORTER: I mean, they're going to be looking at their notes.

MR. MOORE: Uh-huh.

MS. ROGAN: He is also the fourth alternate.

THE COURT: Third now.

MS. ROGAN: Third.

MR. MOORE: Oh, did we lose someone?

MS. ROGAN: Oh, no. Yeah, we moved him up to --

MR. MOORE: Oh, okay. I was going to say, did I miss something somewhere?

MS. ROGAN: Even at third, he's really unlikely to be involved in deliberations.

THE COURT: I think that's probably true, which brings us to another question. I'll just toss it out. Once we get -- assuming we get a guilty verdict and assuming then we move into the sentencing stage, and all that's not done in a day, so we'd have to now sequester the jury overnight with an unfinished sentencing stage. Now we've got these alternates, and it would seem to me the alternates don't go with the twelve anymore, and the question is, if we keep any of them, what if you lose one of them while you've got a day or two or three or whatever of the sentencing stage going on.

It seems to me there ought to be an alternate, at least one alternate retained just in case, for the sentencing phase if we're in that. What do you do with that other alternate? That other alternate's got to be -- our alternates have to be sequestered, and would they have to be sequestered separately or can they stay together?

MS. ROGAN: The other problem is that the alternates won't have participated in the deliberations.

THE COURT: I know, but they may have started their own deliberation if they're together.

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: So, you know, they've been deliberating with the alternates, and then one of them goes in with the other twelve and starts deliberating with them.

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: I don't know. That's something you might just want to think about.

MS. ROGAN: I don't know.

MR. PORTER: I don't know -- if we lost a juror in the middle of the penalty phase, I don't know what the effect would be. Do you have to go back and start all over again with the guilt-innocence?

THE COURT: I think if we got -- well, I guess my inclination would be as long as we've got alternates or at least one alternate, and they hear everything in the courtroom -- they just don't continue deliberations. They've heard all of the evidence and all the law and -- I mean, what if you come back and recharge with an alternate. You bring the alternate back, and they hear the recharge.

MR. PORTER: I've never really thought about it, to tell you the truth.

THE COURT: Well, we might want to -- that's something we may have to address.

MS. ROGAN: Yeah. I don't recall that ever happening, so there must be some rule.

MR. MOORE: I've certainly never encountered it, so --

THE COURT: Well, I just wanted -- at this point, I don't want to get into -- if there's a sentencing stage, if it goes that far, and then have a juror die on us or somebody get sick or something like that --

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: -- and then say, well, now we've got eleven and we're in the middle of the sentencing stage.

MR. PORTER: I guess that the alternate would have to be instructed that the only issue that they -- that the issue of guilt or innocence has been decided --

MS. ROGAN: Right.

MR. PORTER: -- and that the only issue that we would decide on is punishment --

MR. SMEAL: I was going to mention, what happens if the alternate in sentencing would not have found him guilty in the guilt-innocence phase.

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: I think that's resolved.

MR. PORTER: You'd have to say it's done.

THE COURT: No consulting opinions on that one. Okay. All right. You need a minute to do what?

MR. PORTER: Just a second, Your Honor. I just want to do a sound check and then I'll wheel it out of the way.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I think what I'll do is I'll just tell them, you know, anybody -- they're allowed to take notes here and those will be secured. Any other notes anybody takes with respect to the trial, should anybody take any other notes with respect to the trial, those are not to be used in the jury -- that no other matters are to be used in any jury room and not to be used as part of the material used for the deliberation or --

MR. PORTER: Or shared with other jurors.

THE COURT: -- or shared with other jurors. Does that satisfy everybody?

MS. ROGAN: It satisfies me.

MR. MOORE: I'm satisfied.

THE COURT: I think I'm going to keep his notes. I think maybe that'll send him a message.

MS. ROGAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Maybe that will help put a damper on it.

MS. ROGAN: Yeah. That's probably a good idea.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. How long do you need, Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Five seconds, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What do we have coming first?

MR. PORTER: The 9-11 -- the radio operators on the 9-1-1 call from the original theft, and then moving through the theft into the police officers at the precinct.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Everybody ready?

MR. PORTER: And then the hearsay will follow after that.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PORTER: And then this afternoon, we expect to be putting up post-murder financial information. [To Ms. Rogan] The car wash and the T-shirts.

MS. ROGAN: Oh, okay. I thought you meant bank stuff.

THE COURT: Have you got anybody coming to testify about the bills -- that you mentioned in opening statements -- is there anything else coming in with that?

MR. PORTER: Yes, sir. There will be evidence. I'm not sure --

THE COURT: Is that going to be today?

MR. PORTER: I don't know if that will be today.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. It may or may not be today. Okay.

MR. PORTER: Yeah.

MR. SMEAL: It could be this afternoon.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MR. PORTER: Johnny, your expert's still coming today at one to look at the bills?

MR. MOORE: Yeah.

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MOORE: And I hadn't had a chance -- I didn't bring that up pre-trial, but those bills were found at the last minute. We've got an expert, Judge, at $75 an hour, it's probably only going to take him an hour or two to look at them and so --

THE COURT: That's fine. That'll be fine. I imagine where we are at this point, that's nothing.

MR. PORTER: A drop in the bucket.

MR. MOORE: That's why I wasn't going to be concerned with it.

MR. PORTER: A drop in the bucket.

THE COURT: You just want to pause a moment?

MR. PORTER: Just pause.

MR. MOORE: He's just going to examine them.

[Bench conference concluded.]

[Pause in proceedings]

THE COURT: Just make it known when you're ready, Mr. Porter.

MR. PORTER: The state's ready, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the defendant ready?

MS. ROGAN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Bring the jury back, please.

[The jurors were escorted to the courtroom.]

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Is everybody doing okay this morning? Good. Everybody find their pens, pads? If you need any other pads, make it known. The bailiffs will provide what you need.

And in that regard, let me suggest to you and direct you that everybody is authorized to keep whatever notes you want during the course of the trial of the case; and, of course, those will be secured, as I said at the commencement of the trial, and those will all be destroyed at that time.

And if there's anybody else who keeps, during the course of the evenings, any diaries or those kinds of things, let me suggest to you that those are probably best not be kept, but if they are those matters ought to be left out of the trial of the case. They ought not to be referred to or used in any way during the course of the trial of the case and ought not to be in any way provided, discussed, alluded to, or used in any way with the trial of the case or shared with the other jurors. And that will be the instruction of the Court.

Call your first witness, please.

MR. PORTER: The state would call Lenora Taylor to the stand.

[The witness was called to the courtroom.]

MR. PORTER: Ms. Taylor, would you take the witness stand, please.

[The witness stepped to the stand.]

MR. PORTER: Could you raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Whereupon,

LENORA JAQUILLA TAYLOR

having been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. You can put your hand down. Could you state your name and spell it for the record, please?

A. Lenora Jaquilla Taylor, L-e-n-o-r-a, J-a-q-u-i-l-l-a, T-a-y-l-o-r.

Q. And how are you employed, Ms. Taylor?

A. I'm employed with the Gwinnett County police department, Communications Division.

Q. And what is your job function?

A. I'm a senior communications officer.

Q. All right. Do you have supervisory duties there?

A. Supervisory duties, yes.

Q. Let me call your attention to April 1993. In your duties as a supervisor, at that time, were you requested to transfer an original 9-1-1 call onto a cassette tape?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe for the jury what does the tape machine for the original 9-1-1 calls look like and what size is the tape?

A. The tape machine is a Magnesync audio log-in recorder. It's approximately five foot tall and has reel-to-reel tapes that are used to record radio traffic and phone calls coming in and going out of the communications center.

Q. And is it unusual in the course of your duties as a communication supervisor to record from the reel-to-reel tapes onto cassettes for court purposes?

A. No, it's not unusual.

Q. And have you been requested to do that in the past?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe the process by which you created or recorded the cassette tape from the reel-to-reel?

A. I take the reel-to-reel, put it on a Magnesync playback machine that is kept in our office, and I thread the tape, and obtain a new cassette tape, and place it there at the Magnesync, and thread the tape onto the playback. And then I press the play button, make an announcement on the tape, record whatever information I'm going to record from the tape onto the cassette, and make another announcement, and then end the cassette, stop the play back, and then play the tape back to make sure that it's recorded.

Q. All right. In April 1993, in regard to a 9-1-1 call that was received on April 3, 1993, did you go through the process that you've just described in creating a cassette tape from the reel-to-reel?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me show you what I've previously had marked as State's Exhibit Number 72. Can you examine that and identify it for the jury, please?

A. It's a cassette tape that I had made, reference a signal 42, which is a burglary, a phone call recorded on April 3, 1993, with an address of 1402 Craig Drive in Buford.

Q. All right. And did you make that tape?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you examined that tape and listened to the contents to determine whether or not it is the tape that you created in April 1993?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it in fact the cassette that you made from the reel-to-reel of the original 9-1-1 call?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. PORTER: That's all the questions I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Moore?

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MOORE:

Q. Ma'am, my name's Johnny Moore. I have just one question for you. You don't have any personal knowledge of what happened other than what's on the tape, do you?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

MR. MOORE: That's all on this. Thank you.

THE COURT: Redirect?

MR. PORTER: No redirect, Your Honor. We would ask that supervisor Taylor be allowed to go back to the police department. She's been working.

THE COURT: All right. You can come down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. Do I leave this?

MR. PORTER: Just leave it there.

[The witness stepped down from the stand.]

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

MR. PORTER: We call Loretta Bates to the stand.

[The witness was called to the courtroom and stepped to the witness stand.]

MR. PORTER: Ms. Bates, could you have a seat right up there, please. Good morning.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

MR. PORTER: Could you raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

Whereupon,

LORETTA BATES

having been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. You can put your hand down. Take a deep breath. Is this the first time you've ever testified?

A. No.

Q. Let me ask you, what is your name, please?

A. Loretta Bates.

Q. And how are you employed, Ms. Bates?

A. Currently, I'm employed for J. W. Marriott. At the time of this incident, I was employed with Gwinnett County police department.

Q. And what were your duties in April 1993 at the Gwinnett County police department?

A. I was a 9-1-1 dispatcher.

Q. And can you describe for the jury what does a 9-1-1 dispatcher do?

A. A 9-1-1 dispatcher, we receive incoming calls, we dispatch calls, police and med, and assist the county as best we can.

Q. All right. Are the calls that come in to 9-1-1 recorded?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And are they kept on file?

A. Yes.

Q. And are the voices that are on the 9-1-1 tape part of that recording?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you to take a look at State's Exhibit -- which we've had marked as State's Exhibit Number 72, and particularly what's inside of the box. Could you take a look at that and see if you've ever seen that before?

A. No.

Q. You've never seen the tape?

A. No.

Q. Well, let me ask you, Ms. Bates, this morning, were you asked to listen to a tape?

A. Yes, I was asked to listen to a tape.

Q. All right. Did you see the tape in the machine?

A. Yes. I saw this tape in the machine.

Q. All right. And did you in fact listen to the tape?

A. Yes.

Q. Is your voice on the tape?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, at this time, we would move for admission of State's Exhibit Number 72, based upon the foundation of Lenora Taylor and Ms. Bates as identifying the machine was properly operating, that the process was, in making the copy, was properly checked, and Ms. Bates has identified her voice off of the tape.

THE COURT: Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: Your Honor, I think it's admissible, but I think he needs to ask her if it's a true and accurate representation of what she heard first, too, I mean --

THE COURT: I agree.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Ms. Bates, having listened to the tape, is it a true and accurate representation of what happened on the call on April 3, 1993?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, we would move with that foundation.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. MOORE: No objection to the tape, Your Honor.

THE COURT: State's 72 is admitted without objection.

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Now, let me also show you what I've had marked as State's Exhibit Number 73. Can you look at this and identify it, please?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. It's a call card.

Q. All right. Can you tell us what a call card is?

A. A call card is the card that we use when we receive an incoming call. On that card, it has the location, where the incident occurred, the complainant's name, her phone number, it has my number, radio number, the position I was sitting at, and it also has the beep number for the officer that's being dispatched to the call. It also has a signal on there which indicates what type of call it is, and it also has who dispatches the call, as well as how it was handled.

Q. All right. Now, let me ask you to examine State's Exhibit Number 73.

MR. PORTER: And, Your Honor, prior to going into the contents, the state would move to admit State's Exhibit Number 73.

THE COURT: Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: State's 73 is admitted without objection.

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Let me ask you to look at State's Exhibit Number 73. Did you fill portions of that card out?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that your handwriting on those?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you actually dispatch the officer or did you just receive the 9-1-1 call?

A. I received the call.

Q. All right. And then when you receive a call, what do you do with the card?

A. Once the call is received, it's handed to the dispatcher on the radio, at that time, to dispatch to the officer.

Q. Okay. And does the dispatcher call out or fill out the rest of the card once the dispatch is made?

A. The dispatcher, she will put her number in the -- on the card saying that she was the one that dispatched the card. She will also, at the bottom of the card, it will say unit. Under the unit, she will put down the officer's number who's in that particular zone at that time that she dispatched, and for the code, she will put if that case was -- how he handled the case, if there was a report made.

Q. Let me ask you, are the cards also time-stamped?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And are they time-stamped at each step of the way?

A. Yes. It's stamped when the call is received, dispatched, arrived, and completed.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, at this time, the state would like to play for the jury the tape which has been designated as State's Exhibit Number 72. We do not have any other questions for Ms. Bates.

THE COURT: Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: Your Honor, I might have a couple of questions, if we could, before we play the tape.

THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: No, Your Honor. That seems to be the best way to do it.

THE COURT: Go ahead, please.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MOORE:

Q. Ms. Bates, Mr. Porter asked you about the signal and the codes on here. Could you explain to the jury what those -- what the signals are and the codes and what they mean?

A. Signal 42 is a burglary. Code 32 -- I'm not sure if that meant that it was handled by a report. It's been a while since I've last seen these codes. I haven't worked for the county in over a year.

Q. Okay. It shows the dispatcher as Number 42. Do you know who that is?

A. Yes.

Q. And who is that?

A. I believe that was Mrs. McDaniel.

Q. And the time stamps that are referred to on there, that Mr. Porter referred to, could you examine that and tell the jury what time stamps are there and what they mean?

A. The call was received April 3, 1993 at 1504. Received was when I stamped the card. That was after I obtained all the information from Mrs. Thompson. At 1508, where it says dispatch, that was the time that operator 42 dispatched the call. 1521 was when the officer arrived at the scene. 1540 was when the call was completed and he advised her that he was Code 32.

Q. Okay. And Code 32 means what? Or is that the one you said you don't remember?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You don't have any personal knowledge of what's on these tapes other than what's recorded, do you?

A. Nothing other than what I heard this morning.

Q. Okay. Did somebody tell you something this morning or -- without going into it, I mean --

A. I heard the tape this morning.

Q. You listened to the tape this morning?

A. Yes.

Q. That's what you meant. Okay.

MR. MOORE: No further questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, we have no other questions for Ms. Bates and we would ask that she be excused. At this time, the state would like to play the tape.

THE COURT: Would you approach the bench, please?

[Counsel approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the jury.]

THE COURT: I gather we don't have any objections to it being played, but do you want her to stay until it's played in case there's any other questions?

MS. ROGAN: That might be a good idea.

MR. MOORE: It might be a good idea, Judge, since we haven't heard it.

THE COURT: Okay. Is there going to be any objection to playing it?

MR. MOORE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you do that, just leave her on the stand? If there are any follow-up questions, you can.

[Bench conference concluded.]

MR. PORTER: Ms. Bates, while we play the tape, if you could just remain right where you are. It will only take a second.

[Whereupon, the audiocassette tape was played.]

THE COURT: All right. Any other direct examination of this witness?

MR. PORTER: No, Your Honor. No other direct examination.

THE COURT: Mr. Moore, any other questions?

MR. MOORE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want her to be released or excused?

MR. PORTER: Yes, Your Honor, please.

THE COURT: Do you want her on call?

MR. PORTER: She is local, Your Honor. She can remain on call.

THE COURT: You can come down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

[The witness stepped down from the stand.]

THE COURT: Call your next witness, please.

MR. PORTER: We call Marilyn McDaniel to the stand.

[The witness was called to the courtroom and stepped to the witness stand.]

THE COURT: Ma'am, if you'll be seated up here on the stand.

MR. PORTER: Ms. McDaniel, could you raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter now pending, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

Whereupon,

MARILYN MCDANIEL

having been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. And could -- you can let your hand down, and could you state your name, please?

A. Marilyn McDaniel.

Q. Ms. McDaniel, how are you employed?

A. I was employed at the time of the call here at -- with Gwinnett County communications.

Q. Where do you work now?

A. I'm unemployed right now.

Q. Let me ask you, how long -- what were your duties at the Gwinnett County communications?

A. We took 9-1-1 calls and we dispatched zone calls to handle for police, fire, and ambulance.

Q. All right. How long did you work there?

A. Almost eight years.

Q. Let me ask you, do you have any independent recollection of a call that you dispatched on April 3, 1993, to the home of Emogene Thompson?

A. No. Uh-uh [negative].

Q. I'd like to show you what has been marked as State's Exhibit Number 73, and can you take a look at this, and particularly the right hand side of it, and describe for the jury, what that portion of the call card is?

A. It just shows here that I dispatched this call to this particular zone unit.

Q. All right. Let me ask you, how do you know that you dispatched it from looking at that document?

A. Because I have a number there and my number's here in the dispatch block where I dispatched it.

Q. All right. Is that in your handwriting?

A. Yes. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. And then how do you know which zone unit you dispatched?

A. We get a daily duty roster and it has the zones that we have available for that particular area, and then it's in the beat here for the zone, it's written in there for which zone is supposed to be covered by that.

Q. All right. And what zone did you dispatch the card to according to the document?

A. 332.

Q. And is that dispatch notification of 332 in your handwriting?

A. Yes. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. When you dispatch an officer to a call, do the officers call back and tell you what the status is, how they handled the call?

A. Yes. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. Do you make a notation on the card at the time of the call back?

A. Right. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. Did you in fact make a notification on State's Exhibit Number 72 [sic]?

A. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. And what did you --

A. Code status is Code 32.

Q. And can you tell the jury what does Code 32 mean?

A. No report.

Q. Thank you.

MR. PORTER: That's all the questions I have.

THE WITNESS: Is that it?

THE COURT: Just a moment.

MR. PORTER: Just a second. Mr. Moore gets to ask you some questions.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MOORE:

Q. Ms. McDaniel, my name is Johnny Moore. Now, did I understand you to say that Code 32 is no report required?

A. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. Okay. Is that a pretty standard thing at the police department that you get calls where there's no reports required?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. I mean, it happens all the time?

A. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. It's nothing unusual?

A. Uh-uh [negative].

Q. Okay. Now, when you left the police department, did you already have another job lined up?

A. No. Uh-uh [negative].

Q. Would you tell us why you left the police department?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. This is irrelevant. It's not an --

THE COURT: Would you approach the bench, please?

[Counsel approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the jury.]

THE COURT: Where are we headed?

MR. MOORE: Your Honor, she resigned because of an investigation out there that involved the theft of property.

MR. PORTER: I don't think unless he can make a showing of that, that he can improperly impeach this witness because it's not a conviction.

MR. MOORE: I don't know what she's going to answer, Your Honor. I asked her if she resigned. There's been no finding of guilt or anything.

MR. PORTER: But it's an attempt to impeach the witness through her own statement. It's improper. This witness doesn't know all of her rights as far as impeachment. She doesn't even know she doesn't have to answer the question.

THE COURT: Well, I guess thus far we don't have a question asking did you take anything or did you do anything wrong. I guess the question is the basis for why you left.

MR. PORTER: I mean, Your Honor, I'll rely in good faith on Mr. Moore saying that he has the evidence to produce this, but I'm not sure that even if he could prove it, it's impeachable material.

THE COURT: Well, I guess the question is, you're talking about a conviction, is that what you're talking about?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm not aware of a conviction.

THE COURT: No, but I'm saying is that what you're saying? You got to have a certified copy of the conviction for impeachment, is that what you're saying?

MR. PORTER: Yeah. Your Honor, you've got to have the witness either could not have testified to the facts testified to, that she has testified inconsistently in the past, that she has a prior felony conviction, or she has committed a crime of moral turpitude. Those are the four statutory methods of impeachment.

MR. MOORE: Your Honor, I think bias and prejudice either for or against the police department also can be explored into.

THE COURT: Well, that's the part I was coming to. I guess if it's not for impeachment, then for what purpose? You're saying it just relates to her credibility the reason she left?

MR. MOORE: Yes, sir. I mean, I don't know that she's going to admit anything. I don't expect she would. From what I understand, she denied everything and she resigned under pressure, but I mean, if she has bad feelings toward the police department, if she didn't think they investigated it properly or something like that, then --

MR. PORTER: But how is that irrelevant to this issue? She's testified to a very limited issue. How does it -- there's been no showing there is any bias. She's identified a document and said she had no independent recollection of it, but she filled out three portions of the document.

THE COURT: What do you contend it relates to, Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: Well, Mr. Porter put her up. He must have thought it was important to have her there, so her credibility is in issue. I mean, once he puts her up, if it wasn't important, then he didn't need to put her up.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, she is important for a specific purpose, but to allow -- he's either going to impeach her -- but to talk about general bias or lack of credibility, that goes to the issue to which she's testified. The only way you can show general lack of credibility is through a prior conviction.

THE COURT: Well, what has she testified to at this point? She's testified -- she's laid the foundation for the business record. Well, not really a business record, but she's testified that she took the call --

MR. PORTER: She dispatched the call.

THE COURT: And as to what the officer's response -- this is the defendant's response.

MR. PORTER: Well, Your Honor, that hasn't been established yet.

THE COURT: I know, but that's where we're going; right?

MR. PORTER: It's basically it.

MR. MOORE: If Mr. Porter's concerned about her incriminating herself or something, Your Honor, I wouldn't have any objection to sending the jury out and having you advise her to what her rights are, you know.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm not concerned about her incriminating herself. I'm concerned out of a sense of simple decency this woman not be abused unnecessarily because the laws of evidence don't permit it. It's irrelevant to bring up any reasons why she left unless Mr. Moore can make a showing there is some bias or prejudice, not speculate that she may not have liked the police department because they made accusations.

MR. MOORE: She's the only one who knows whether she has biases and prejudice, I mean --

THE COURT: Well, my inclination is to let you ask the question and go into it on a very limited basis as to her leaving under pressure or resigning under pressure, but not, well, did you commit any crime or --

MR. MOORE: I'm not going to ask her that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- have you been convicted or have you been indicted or have you been arrested or any of that sort of thing. What do you want to ask her?

MR. MOORE: Basically, if she -- whatever she answers, Your Honor, I might follow up with was she satisfied with the police investigation of it. That's all.

THE COURT: I'll allow that. I think that's an appropriate question.

MR. SMEAL: It seems to the state that the fact that there was no report or the fact that Mike Chapel was dispatched to the burglary is not being contested in this case by the defense, so how is the issue of bias relevant to those two issues if they're not contesting the fact that there was no report or that Chapel was dispatched?

MR. MOORE: Your Honor, this officer is a witness here and it's a key issue in this case, the investigative techniques of the police department, whether or not they do a good job in their investigations, and they've injected it by putting her up as a witness.

MR. PORTER: This isn't an investigative technique. This is a dispatcher --

MR. MOORE: If she was investigated, it is.

MR. PORTER: The fact that she was investigated isn't an investigative technique in relation to Michael Chapel's guilt or innocence.

MS. ROGAN: She's also answered in a misleading fashion already about what Code 32 means.

MR. PORTER: Which was clarified on cross- examination.

MS. ROGAN: No, it wasn't correctly.

MR. PORTER: Well, correctly, depending on --

THE COURT: You can ask it, Mr. Moore, and then if you want to ask about whether she's satisfied or not, but I don't want --

MR. MOORE: I'm not going to go into detail.

THE COURT: Okay.

[Bench conference concluded.]

THE COURT: Go ahead, please.

BY MR. MOORE:

Q. Ms. McDaniel, could you tell us why you left the police department?

A. I resigned due to some stress and stuff that was going on. I'd gone through a divorce and some stuff that an ex-husband had come up with that was -- that he had brought and stirred up a lot of stuff.

Q. Okay. Was there an investigation by the police department into that?

A. Right. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. Were you satisfied with the investigation?

A. Well, I didn't think it was really fair.

Q. Now, this Code 32, again, I've conferred with -- and I think I may have misled you. I said no report required, but actually it's no report requested, isn't it?

A. Right. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. Rather than no report required?

A. Uh-huh [affirmative].

Q. It's no report requested?

A. Right.

Q. And that's by the victim. The victim didn't request the report?

A. Right.

Q. Is that what that means?

A. Right.

MR. MOORE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Redirect?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Ms. McDaniel, would the fact that you left the police department, under the circumstances that you've described affect your testimony here today as to the -- your identification of the call card?

A. No. Uh-uh [negative].

Q. Did you in fact fill out the call card?

A. I -- yes, the side over here is the code status and it was me dispatching it and the unit that I sent, yes.

Q. Thank you. That's all the questions I have.

THE COURT: Recross?

MR. MOORE: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You can come down. Call your next witness, please.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, we would ask that Ms. McDaniel be allowed to leave. She is available and can be reached. I believe she lives outside of Atlanta and would take some time to get here.

THE COURT: All right. You just want her on call at this point?

MR. PORTER: If we could just put her on call.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moore, any objection to that?

MR. MOORE: No, Your Honor. No objection.

THE COURT: All right. You'll be subject to recall, Ms. McDaniel. Call your next witness, please.

[The witness stepped down from the stand.]

MR. PORTER: The state would call Michael Thompson to the stand.

[The witness was called to the courtroom.]

THE COURT: Mr. Thompson, if you'll be seated up here on the witness stand, please.

[The witness stepped to the stand.]

MR. PORTER: Could you raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter now pending, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

Whereupon,

MICHAEL KEITH THOMPSON

having been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. And if you could sit back and you're going to have to speak up so the jurors can hear you. Could you state your name and spell it, please?

A. Michael Keith Thompson, M-i-c-h-a-e-l, K-e-i-t-h, T-h-o-m-p-s-o-n.

Q. Mr. Thompson, are you related to the victim, Emogene Thompson?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you describe that relationship?

A. I'm her son.

Q. In April 1993, where did you live?

A. 1472 -- 1402 Craig Drive.

Q. And where is that located?

A. Buford, Georgia.

Q. Who did you live there with?

A. Her.

Q. And how long had you and your mother lived together in April 1993?

A. About four years.

Q. Could you describe the house?

A. It was a trailer, single-wide trailer.

Q. Let me ask you, in 1992 and 1993, did you become aware that your mother had received an insurance settlement?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you tell us how much you became aware that she had received?

A. $25,000.

Q. Can you describe the circumstances under which she received --

THE COURT: Can all the jurors hear?

A JUROR: Barely.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Thompson, if you'll speak up into the black microphones and stand up the microphone and speak up, please, so everybody can hear.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Go ahead, please.

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Can you describe for the jury the circumstances under which she received that $25,000?

A. It was a insurance benefit from her boyfriend.

Q. Do you know what your mother did with the money once she received it from the insurance company?

A. She had deposited it in the bank and was going to get our place fixed up.

Q. Now, let me call your attention to April -- excuse me, March of 1993. Do you know whether or not your mother withdrew that money from the bank?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how much money was withdrawn from the bank?

A. $14,000.

Q. Did you ever see the $14,000?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you describe what denominations it was in?

A. Hundred dollar bills.

Q. What did your mother do with the money?

A. She hid it in the house.

Q. All right. Do you know where?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did she hide it?

A. Taped to the back of her second drawer in her dresser.

Q. All right. When did you find out she had hidden the money?

A. She told me she hid it in the house.

Q. How was it packaged?

A. In bank envelopes.

Q. How many were there?

A. Two.

Q. You say that she told you where the money -- where the money was hidden. Was that as soon as she had taken it out of the bank?

MS. ROGAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object. Can we approach, please?

THE COURT: Yes.

[Counsel approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the jury.]

MS. ROGAN: He's clearly about to elicit hearsay from the victim. The state had the opportunity to establish this witness's hearsay testimony through the necessity exception at the hearing that we had pretrial, and they did not call him at that time. And it's our position that they have waived the right to have this witness testify as to the hearsay.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I don't believe we've waived any right, first of all.

THE COURT: I don't either.

MR. PORTER: Second of all -- second of all --

THE COURT: I think it's like filing a motion in limine and lose it, you can renew it and, you know, raise your objections and all that sort of thing. I don't think there's any waiver. I don't think so.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm not going to elicit testimony in any significant fashion except to establish that this witness knew where the money was hidden immediately upon its withdrawal from the bank, and I can ask the question in that way.

THE COURT: Yeah. I guess -- did you know where the money was? Yeah. Well, how do you know? Well, she showed me or she told me or whatever, you know. I guess that's hearsay in a sense, do you know where it was.

MR. PORTER: But I don't intend to get into any conversations.

THE COURT: That's the extent of it? She told him where it was, and he knew where it was?

MR. PORTER: Yes, sir.

MS. ROGAN: Okay. I just wanted to make -- I mean, there's a lot of other hearsay the witness potentially could testify to.

MR. PORTER: Oh, sure.

MS. ROGAN: And I don't want to --

THE COURT: Well, I guess however old he is, he's got that many years worth of potential hearsay, I guess.

MS. ROGAN: I just wanted to make sure that our objections were on record as to --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. ROGAN: -- hearsay that we haven't previously discussed in a pretrial hearing.

THE COURT: Okay. Does that satisfy your concern?

MS. ROGAN: If that's the extent of what he's going to elicit, yes.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

[Bench conference concluded.]

THE COURT: Go ahead, please.

BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Mr. Thompson, the point that I'm getting to is, did you know where the money was as soon as it came out of the bank?

A. Not as soon as it came out of the bank.

Q. About how long was it after the money came out --

A. About a week.

Q. And how did you know that the money was there?

A. I found it after my mother told me where it was at.

Q. All right. So prior to you finding it, she had already told you?

A. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. Now, let me call your attention specifically to April 3, 1993. Were you at home that day?

A. I think I was. Yes.

Q. On that day, are you aware of whether or not your mother reported to the Gwinnett County police department a theft?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present when the police officers responded?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the officer who responded?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was it?

A. Mike Chapel.

Q. Did you know him prior to April 3?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever seen him prior to April 3?

A. In his patrol car around town, but I had never met him.

Q. Could you describe what happened when Officer Chapel responded to the complaint of a theft at your house?

A. Well, he come out because my mother had called him to -- about a burglary and he was the officer that come out to, I guess, fill out the report for it. And, basically, that's about all. We talked about the money, you know, and where it was and how much had come up missing and --

Q. Were you present during these conversations between Officer Chapel and your mother?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you aware of how much money that was gone?

A. Not exactly. Mostly half of what it was.

Q. What did Officer Chapel tell your mother about whether or not it was a burglary?

A. He -- I presumed he thought that I had done it at first.

Q. Did he confront you with thinking that you did it?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he actually ask you if you did it?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you say?

A. No.

Q. Did Officer Chapel ever ask you to leave the trailer?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did you go when you left the trailer?

A. Outside.

Q. And did you happen to see what happened or was going on inside the trailer after you left?

A. Yes.

Q. Describe for the jury how you saw it.

A. I looked through the window in the door.

Q. And what did you see?

A. My mother showing him the money that was left.

Q. Did they do anything with the money when -- that was left?

A. She just took it out and showed her -- showed him what she had left.

Q. About how long was Officer Chapel there?

A. About roughly thirty minutes.

Q. At that time, did he accuse you again of stealing the money?

A. Yes.

Q. Michael, did you steal the money?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. I wouldn't have to. My mother would have given me anything. All I had to do was ask for it. I wouldn't have had to have stolen it from her.

Q. After the report of the theft, do you know where your mother kept the remainder of the money?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did she keep it?

A. In her purse.

Q. And where did she keep her purse?

A. With her at all times.

Q. Did she keep anything else in the purse?

A. All her jewelry mostly.

Q. Now, during the time between April 3 and April 15, did you have any occasion later on to have any other contact with Officer Chapel?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe those contacts for the jury?

A. I just met him at my place of business at that time. He just talked to me for about five minutes and that was all.

Q. What did he say?

A. He was just asking me if I had had any more leads or anything on the case.

Q. Did he accuse you again of stealing the money?

A. No.

Q. At the Subway, he didn't accuse you?

A. No.

Q. Did he give you any indication that he was following up on the case himself?

A. No.

Q. Now, let's go to the evening of April 15, 1993. Did you see your mother that night?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you see her?

A. I was with her most of the afternoon.

Q. All right. And what did you do?

A. We had -- well, she slept till about seven and then we went out and eat and went back home.

Q. Now, you say she slept till seven --

A. She worked third shift, so she slept most of the day.

Q. Where did she work?

A. CIBA Vision.

Q. And what was the hours that she worked?

A. Eleven to seven.

Q. Where did y'all have dinner?

A. Waffle House.

Q. About what time did you go home?

A. Roughly between 8:30 and nine.

Q. All right. And where did your mother go?

A. She went to the house and was going to get -- finish getting ready for work.

Q. And what time did she leave?

A. I wasn't there when she left, so I don't know exactly what time she left.

Q. Did you ever see your mother alive after that?

A. No.

Q. When's the -- what kind of car did your mother drive?

A. An '86 Lincoln Continental.

Q. And what color was it?

A. Chocolate brown with a tan convertible type top.

Q. The next morning, on April 16, did you have an occasion to see that vehicle again?

A. Yes.

Q. Where was it?

A. In front of Gwinnettco Muffler with a flat tire.

Q. Had you received information from someone that the car was there?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you go to the Gwinnco Muffler?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you see about the car?

A. It was already marked off with crime scene tape when I arrived.

Q. All right. Would they let you approach it?

A. No.

Q. How would you describe your emotional state that morning?

A. Shocked, illusions, disillusioned.

Q. Let me ask you, at the time that you went to the scene, did you request that the police look for your mother's purse?

A. Yes.

Q. And to your knowledge, was that purse found at the scene?

A. To my knowledge, it wasn't there.

Q. Have you ever received it?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever gotten it back?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever gotten the $7,000 that was in it?

A. No.

Q. Now, Michael, I'd also like to ask you about the week after the murder. Did you need some money that week?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do to get the money?

A. I pawned a gun.

Q. What kind of gun was it?

A. A rifle.

Q. Was it a rifle that you owned?

A. It was my mother's.

Q. How much did you get for it?

A. I think it was $60.

Q. Thank you.

MR. PORTER: That's all the questions I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: Ms. Rogan's going to handle this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: Could I move this podium a little? I can't hear you very well.

MR. MOORE: Where do you want it?

MS. ROGAN: I'm sorry. Just up a little bit closer. Thank you.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Thompson.

A. Good morning.

Q. I'm Elizabeth Rogan. We've met before, haven't we?

A. Yes.

Q. You've told us that you have seen Officer Chapel in his patrol car around the neighborhood where you lived previously, prior to the time he responded to your call to your home.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall that he responded to a call at your place of employment, as you said, which was the Subway Sandwich Shop --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in late March?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. You don't remember that? You don't remember him coming out? There was an accusation of theft.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That's not a question. Ms. Rogan's testifying and nodding her head. I believe she -- even on cross-examination, although she can ask leading questions, she has to ask questions.

THE COURT: What was the question?

MS. ROGAN: I asked him if he remembered the incident that I described.

MR. PORTER: But then, Your Honor, it was 'don't you remember he came out,' and she's nodding her head. That's not a question. That's testimony.

THE COURT: Well, state your question --

MS. ROGAN: All right.

THE COURT: -- and let him answer. Go ahead. Restate your question, please.

MS. ROGAN: All right.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. Do you remember an incident involving an accusation of theft by an employee, not by you, but by a different employee that Officer Chapel responded to at the Subway shop?

A. Not to my knowledge. I can't remember.

Q. Now, you've told us that your mother had inherited about $25,000 altogether?

A. Yes.

Q. Through the insurance benefits from her former boyfriend who had --

A. Yes.

Q. -- who had died of cancer, I believe?

A. Yes.

Q. And that between the time she started to receive the money, which was about November 1992 --

A. Yes.

Q. -- until April, she had spent about $10,000 of it.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, again, that's not a question. That's testimony. If Ms. -- the question is, did she spend $10,000? Did she spend about $10,000? Ms. Rogan is testifying and asking the witness to affirm it, which is not --

THE COURT: That's the nature of a leading question, it seems to me.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I don't even believe these are in the form of a question.

THE COURT: All right. Well, ask the question again.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. Did your mother, between the time she received the money and April 1993, spend about $10,000 of that money?

A. Yeah, roughly.

Q. So there was about $14,000 left in late February, March?

A. Yes.

Q. And she withdrew the -- did she -- she withdrew the rest of that money in early March?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember testifying previously in a hearing related to this case that she had withdrawn the money in mid-February?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. You don't remember testifying or you don't remember saying that?

A. I don't remember saying that.

Q. You don't remember saying that?

A. No.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I gave you a transcript of the testimony you previously gave?

A. Was that in the deposition?

Q. Excuse me?

A. In the deposition?

Q. Yes.

A. It may have been. I don't know the exact date that she had withdrawn it.

Q. Would it help you to look at the deposition to refresh your recollection?

A. Yeah.

[Defendant's exhibit was marked for identification by the court reporter.]

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 46. Have you ever seen this before, Mr. Thompson?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you -- what do you recognize it to be?

A. A deposition that I gave.

Q. Just one second because I neglected to show it to the state.

[Brief pause in proceedings]

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. I'm going to direct your attention to Page 66. If you would just read starting at Line 11 through about Line 17.

A. [Witness reads document.]

Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection --

A. Yes.

Q. -- as to what you said during the deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Sir, do you now recall testifying previously that she had withdrawn the money in mid-February?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you've told us that your mother discovered that half of her money was missing?

A. Yes.

Q. She discovered the money missing sometime before she called the police?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. It was a couple of weeks?

A. A couple of days.

Q. A couple of days?

A. [Witness nods head affirmatively.]

Q. Do you remember telling us in the deposition, testifying under oath in the deposition, that she had discovered the money missing in late March?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection to look at the deposition again? I direct you to Page 67. Right there. Page 66, Line 24, 25, and then a little bit on Page 67, would you just --

A. Okay.

Q. -- look at that and refresh your recollection.

A. [Witness reads document.]

Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. I'm sorry.

Q. So do you now recall --

A. Yes.

Q. -- testifying that she had discovered the money missing in late March? Now, she called the police. She placed a 911 call on April 3; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That was a Saturday?

A. I think so. I'm not -- I can't remember.

Q. You were home?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you were there when Officer Chapel responded to the call?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Thompson, your mother did believe at that time that you had been involved in taking the money?

A. No.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. There's been no foundation laid, and this is irrelevant to this issue. He's answered the question.

THE COURT: Ms. Rogan?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, she's eliciting --

THE COURT: Would you approach the bench, please.

[Counsel approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the jury.]

MR. PORTER: Ms. Rogan's eliciting information she's objected to from the state putting in. This is information they have argued is inadmissible, the victim's state of mind or her belief.

THE COURT: Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: Well, it also has to do with what she told Mr. Chapel, and this witness has testified previously that his mother did believe and confront him about having taken the money.

MR. PORTER: That doesn't make it any more admissible.

THE COURT: What are you going to ask him? What are you --

MS. ROGAN: I'm going to ask him if he remembers if he -- if his mother believed he'd taken the money. If he denies that, I am going to impeach him with his prior testimony that he -- his mother believed he'd taken the money and said that to him.

MR. PORTER: And, Your Honor, the state's position is the underlying testimony is inadmissible. They can ask him if he took the money, but they can't ask him what his mother believed.

MS. ROGAN: It's extremely relevant to the manner in which Mr. Chapel handled this case, Your Honor, and which is one of, you know, the state's major arguments. I think we're entitled to cast the investigation --

THE COURT: It's basically another hearsay argument; right?

MS. ROGAN: Excuse me?

THE COURT: It's basically another hearsay issue; right?

MS. ROGAN: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: What does your mother believe and then -- isn't that the essence of it?

MS. ROGAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Then why is it admissible or not admissible, I guess is the question. Why do you contend it is admissible?

MS. ROGAN: Under the necessity exception.

THE COURT: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: How do they contend that it's admissible under these circumstances, but it's inadmissible in the circumstances where Detective Latty says it? How do they distinguish this between a situation where Ms. Thompson believed that the officer was following her? How is Mr. Moore relying on that?

MS. ROGAN: Because this is going directly to the person she said it to.

MR. PORTER: That testimony is too.

THE COURT: What did he say in the -- was this a prior hearing or what?

MS. ROGAN: It was a deposition in the civil case.

THE COURT: Okay, in the civil case. Okay. What did he say in that?

MS. ROGAN: He said that he believed -- that his mother believed he had taken the money and she did not necessarily think that it was -- had been a burglary.

THE COURT: Did he say that's what she said or it was his conclusion as to what she believed or what?

MS. ROGAN: I have the deposition. My recollection is that it was more his conclusion of what she believed.

MR. PORTER: I believe that's correct, Your Honor. Officer Chapel said it wasn't a burglary, and Officer Chapel said that he took the money, and he told Emogene Thompson that. He says that in his own statement.

THE COURT: Well, it seems to me what you're offering in is what do you think your mother's state of mind was and what did she believe about him taking the money as opposed to conversations or declarations. I mean that's what I'm hearing you say.

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: I mean I don't believe that comes in by way of necessity.

MR. MOORE: Your Honor, how about if it's approached in a different way, if she ever confronted him and accused him, without asking what she said. I think that's a fact. If she had confronted him and accused him, that's not hearsay, without saying what she said.

MS. ROGAN: Also, Your Honor, at this point, the record shows that she did not request that a report be made. That's what Code 32 means.

THE COURT: Well, but that's not the issue here.

MS. ROGAN: No, I know, but I mean in the context -- the state is trying to imply that Mr. Chapel took it upon himself not to investigate this case when in -- their own documents establish that she did not want to prosecute because she thought her son had taken the money. That sheds a completely different light on the case which I think we're entitled to establish.

THE COURT: But all that's -- I think that's all sort of collateral at this point. What is it you want to ask him?

MS. ROGAN: I want to ask him if -- I'll ask him if his mother confronted him about having taken the money.

MR. MOORE: And Your Honor, there's an exception to explain conduct -- to explain her conduct of why she did not want a report made in the case.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, if she's saying the question is if his mother ever confronted him, I agree with Mr. Moore, it's a fact. But what Ms. Rogan's trying to get in is what was your mother's state of mind, did she believe you stole the money?

THE COURT: Well, that's the problem I've got with that question, what do you think she's thinking, you know.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, and I hate to -- I'll wait for the Court's ruling, but I have another issue. I don't want to stand up every time Ms. Rogan testifies, but these simply are not questions.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. PORTER: And the law contemplates questions, even though they are leading.

THE COURT: Well, a suggestion, I guess -- well, it's sort of semantics.

MR. PORTER: Well, Your Honor, I see it as something different than semantics. It's that Ms. Rogan is testifying.

THE COURT: Well, that is a leading question. I mean that's what you're doing with a leading question is you testify for him and say 'isn't that right.' I mean that's the essence of a leading question.

MR. PORTER: But in the situation we have here, we don't even have 'isn't that right.'

THE COURT: Okay. Well, maybe throw in 'isn't that right.'

MS. ROGAN: Well, I'll add 'isn't that right' on the end.

THE COURT: I mean that's the purpose of cross, to testify for them, and that's why everybody wants to do it with leading questions, and they're stupid if they don't.

MR. PORTER: Well, I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, as far as the issue as far as him testifying to her state of mind, the objection is sustained. And if there is a -- if we have a hearsay issue separate from that, then, I think that's a different question. And do we have that question, I guess, is my question?

MS. ROGAN: It depends, I suppose, on how he answers the first question.

THE COURT: Well, the first question is what was she thinking, and then the objection is sustained.

MS. ROGAN: Right. Now the first question would be did she confront you about about having stolen the money. If he denies that, then, it seems to me, I've got some right to impeach him on that with his prior testimony.

THE COURT: Have you got your transcript here from the civil case?

MS. ROGAN: Yes.

THE COURT: We'll send the jury out and just sort this out.

MS. ROGAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay?

MS. ROGAN: Okay.

[Bench conference concluded.]

THE COURT: We have some matters to take up that won't require the presence of the jury, so I'm going to go ahead and -- you're going to be taking a -- you'll be taking a recess here shortly anyway. We'll just go ahead and you can take a recess. And if they want a cup of coffee or something to drink, we can do that.

Leave your pens, pads, and notes in your seats. They'll be waiting on you when you return. I'll ask you to go with the bailiffs at this point.

[The jury was excused from the courtroom for the recess.]

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Rogan, with respect to the -- I believe the question you want to pose is --

MS. ROGAN: Your Honor, well, could we do this outside the presence of the witness?

THE COURT: Well, I want to know what he's going to say.

MS. ROGAN: All right.

THE COURT: I mean that's what I want to know, what's he going to say so we can proceed on to the next one.

MS. ROGAN: All right.

THE COURT: What questions do you want to ask?

MS. ROGAN: Well, I wanted to ask if his mother believed that he had taken the money.

THE COURT: All right. Which was objected to by the state.

MS. ROGAN: That's correct.

THE COURT: That objection is sustained.

MS. ROGAN: Okay. So then I will ask, did your mother ever confront you about having taken the money?

THE COURT: All right. And what's your answer?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. What's your next question?

MS. ROGAN: When Officer Chapel came out to investigate, did he also confront you about having taken the money?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MS. ROGAN: That's essentially what I wanted to ask.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PORTER: Those aren't objectionable questions.

THE COURT: All right. Any other matter we need to clear up while the jury's out?

MR. PORTER: Unless Ms. Rogan -- Your Honor, unless Ms. Rogan wants to give me a copy of all of her questions and I can anticipate the objections, then I think we're going to have to sort of catch it as we go.

THE COURT: Well, you can throw in 'isn't that right' on your questions.

MS. ROGAN: Okay. I will.

[Laughter]

THE COURT: All right. Anything else at this point, Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Nothing from the state, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: Not that I can --

THE COURT: All right.

MS. ROGAN: -- not at this point.

THE COURT: Let's take fifteen minutes. You can come down, Mr. Thompson.

MS. ROGAN: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

[The witness stepped down from the witness stand.]

[Break taken]

[Following the break, all parties returned to the courtroom, and the witness resumed the stand.]

THE COURT: Is the state ready? Ready, Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ready, Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bring the jury back, please.

[The jury returned to the courtroom.]

THE COURT: Ms. Rogan, go ahead, please.

MS. ROGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

MICHAEL KEITH THOMPSON

CROSS EXAMINATION - RESUMED

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. Okay. Mr. Thompson, I apologize for that lengthy delay. I think where we left off was your mother calling the police on April 3 regarding the money that she had discovered missing several days previously.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did she confront you about having taken that money?

A. Yes.

Q. When Officer Chapel came out to the trailer home that day to investigate, did he also confront you?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, he asked you to step outside for a while while he was there so that he could talk to your mother privately?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Chapel told you that he thought that the theft of the money involved drugs and the people who live next door to you?

A. No.

Q. He never told you that?

A. [Witness shakes head negatively.]

Q. Were you aware that your mother had recontacted the police over that weekend --

A. No.

Q. -- after that Saturday visit?

A. No.

Q. Now, Mr. -- Officer Chapel came to the Subway where you worked on the Monday following his visit on Saturday, didn't he?

A. I don't remember exactly what day it was.

Q. You do remember him coming --

A. Yes.

Q. -- to speak to you again?

A. Yes.

Q. And didn't he in fact confront you again about having taken the money and coming clean about that?

A. No.

Q. He never said anything to you --

A. I don't -- I don't remember to my knowledge.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Not to your knowledge. You don't remember him asking you to --

A. No.

Q. -- stop hurting your mama like that?

A. No.

Q. Your testimony is that he came out to see if you had any other leads into the burglary?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Thompson, you actually had taken some of that money previously, hadn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. About $400 of it?

A. Yes.

Q. You had found out where it was hidden and taken it?

A. Yes.

Q. You had also previously forged some checks on your mother's checking account?

A. No.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. This is not relevant to the -- and there's no proof.

THE COURT: What is the relevance, Ms. Rogan? Why don't you approach the bench.

[Counsel approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the jury.]

THE COURT: Where are we going?

MS. ROGAN: I'm trying to establish that his mother had a well-founded belief for thinking that he might have taken the money.

THE COURT: Well -- Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I don't think that that's an -- it's an attempt to impeach the witness's credibility improperly.

MR. MOORE: Your Honor, his lack of money and everything goes to his motive and intent for this burglary, just like Mr. Porter contended to the nature of Officer Chapel. It goes to his motive and intent to commit the crime --

THE COURT: Well, but we don't have anybody on trial here for burglary. Burglary is not the issue. What does it matter at this point who took the money?

MS. ROGAN: It matters in terms of how Mr. Chapel responded to this situation. The state is making a big deal about the fact that he didn't investigate this burglary. And the fact is, he didn't think it was a burglary, and there are valid reasons why he didn't think it was a burglary.

MR. PORTER: Let him explain them.

THE COURT: Well, your questions, though -- it seems to me the line of questioning is not what Mr. Chapel did, but now, then, we've shifted over into, you know, for this witness 'what did you take before, did you forge a check,' or whatever else. I don't know where else we're going, but I mean what's that got to do with Mr. Chapel?

MS. ROGAN: Because Mr. Chapel is responding to the information he was getting from the victim and how to respond to this case, how to deal with it.

THE COURT: Well, is any of this tied to Mr. Chapel's investigation or his inquiry?

MS. ROGAN: It's tied insofar as the victim told Mr. Chapel that she believed her son had taken the money, and she didn't want to prosecute him, and she'd had a history of him stealing from her.

THE COURT: Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, again, it's inadmissible hearsay.

THE COURT: I thought she was asking him 'did you forge -- had you ever forged checks.'

MR. PORTER: Well, what she's doing is trying to bring this witness's character and credibility into play without going through the proper method of character impeachment. If she wants to ask Mr. Chapel what the victim told him and ask him to explain his conduct, then let him explain it. He's sitting right here in the courtroom.

MS. ROGAN: Well, we will.

MR. PORTER: But this is not the way.

MS. ROGAN: But I think that, you know, obviously a defendant's word is --

THE COURT: Well, what do you want to ask this witness? What questions do you want to ask him along this line?

MS. ROGAN: I want to ask him if he'd ever forged checks on his mother's checking account. He's already admitted in the deposition that he did.

MR. PORTER: That's irrelevant, Your Honor, that he admitted it in the deposition. It's whether or not it's admissible in front of this jury. And they're going to put Michael Thompson on trial for the -- for the theft, which is not an issue in this trial.

MS. ROGAN: It is an issue in this trial, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And why is it?

MS. ROGAN: Because if everyone believed that he had taken the money, even if it's not true, that goes miles towards explaining why Mr. Chapel responded in the way he did. It wasn't because he wanted the money himself and was trying to, you know, set up this meeting with her. It was because there was nothing to investigate. She wasn't going to prosecute her son and that was the end of the issue as far as he was concerned.

THE COURT: Well, yeah. Maybe so.

MR. SMEAL: Does the defense intend to establish that any alleged forgeries were brought to Chapel's attention?

MS. ROGAN: Yes. The victim told him that she had had trouble with her son stealing money from her for quite a while.

MR. PORTER: But, Your Honor, if that's true and it is admissible to explain Chapel's conduct, then it's the testimony of Chapel if it's elicited -- it's irrelevant to this issue as to whether or not --

THE COURT: Well, I think you can raise that by your direct. I think if on direct you ask this witness whether the defendant asked you to step outside, and then what did you see. Well, I saw him -- he was sitting there looking at the money with the victim. I think that's a reasonable area of cross-examination as to, well, the reason he asked -- I presume that's where we're headed that, you know, that's the reason he wanted him to step out was over the concern about the son. Maybe she wouldn't talk about that in front of the son, so he sent him out so we can talk about that.

MR. PORTER: But does this witness know about that?

THE COURT: Well, if -- that's the subject.

MR. PORTER: I mean can this witness testify that's why Chapel asked me to step outside?

THE COURT: Well --

MS. ROGAN: I'm not going to ask him that.

THE COURT: What do you want to ask? Do you want to ask him did he forge a check?

MS. ROGAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: I'll allow that.

MS. ROGAN: And if he denies it --

THE COURT: Okay. I'll allow it.

MS. ROGAN: -- I've got testimony that he previously has given that he said he had.

THE COURT: All right. I'll allow that. What else do you want to ask him about along those lines?

MS. ROGAN: Then my next question was going to be what about the resort that his mother --

THE COURT: About the what?

MS. ROGAN: The reason she was hiding the money was because she was about to be sued by a resort, and I wanted to establish that through him that he and she had gone in together on this timeshare that she was trying to get out of.

MR. PORTER: How is that -- why is it relevant to the reason she withdrew the money?

THE COURT: What is its relevance?

MS. ROGAN: Well, it's relevant. Number one, it's relevant that she was hiding the money from the law, but aside from that, she was -- he had a pattern of getting her into financial trouble.

THE COURT: I don't think that's relevant.

MS. ROGAN: I won't insist on that.

THE COURT: What kind of financial manager he is, I don't think is relevant.

MS. ROGAN: Okay.

THE COURT: You can ask the question about the forgery.

MS. ROGAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

[Bench conference concluded.]

THE BAILIFF: Judge, may I?

THE COURT: Yes.

[A conference was held between the Court and the bailiff, as follows.]

THE BAILIFF: The jurors say they cannot hear this guy.

THE COURT: Yeah. We'll ask him to speak up.

[Conference concluded.]

THE COURT: What's your question, Ms. Rogan? Please speak up, Mr. Thompson, so everybody can hear you.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. I'm sorry about all of these stops and starts, Mr. Thompson. My question for you is had you ever forged checks on your mother's account before?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember testifying previously in this case, in the deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember testifying at that time that you had forged checks against your mother's account?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Okay. Would reviewing your testimony from the deposition refresh your recollection on that point?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If you'll bear with me for just a moment.

MS. ROGAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I had written down the wrong page, and I'm just trying to locate the correct one.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. I'm going to come back to that. No. I think I've got it. I'm going to come back to that. You've told us that your mother had been carrying, in addition to the balance of the money, she'd been carrying her jewelry in her purse?

A. Yes.

Q. Why was that; do you know?

A. She always done that.

Q. She had always done that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the reason why she had always done that?

A. It was just -- she just always did it. She didn't want to leave it in the house for someone to break in and steal it.

Q. Okay. She was worried about her jewelry getting stolen if it was in the house?

A. [Witness nods head affirmatively.]

Q. Are you aware of whether your mother had pawned some jewelry in February 1993?

A. No.

Q. Now, you've told us that you were with your mother during the afternoon of April 15, that Thursday --

A. Yes.

Q. -- until -- and that she was sleeping for a large part of that time because she worked at night?

A. Yes.

Q. And she got up around seven and you went to the Waffle House?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you remember telling Investigator Burnette that you had gone to the Waffle House with your mom and you had steaks?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you came back from the Waffle House around 8:30, quarter till nine?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then you left and you presume your mother got ready to go to work?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When you left, you went next door to your friend, Amy Parker's house?

A. No.

Q. Where did you go?

A. It was down the street at another friend of mine's house.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Down the street at another friend's house.

Q. You didn't go to Amy Parker's house?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember making the statement to Detective Ervin on the day after they found your mom's body?

A. Not to my recognition. I don't recognize his name.

Q. You don't remember making the statement? Okay.

MS. ROGAN: I'd like to have this marked, please. Okay.

[Defendant's exhibit was marked for identification by the court reporter.]

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 49 and ask you just to look at this. You don't need to read the whole thing. I just want you to see if that looks familiar to you.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did you write this, Mr. Thompson, or did --

A. No.

Q. -- Detective Ervin write it for you?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. He wrote it for you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign your name, though?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that your signature? And you signed down on the second page?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Okay. I'd like to direct your attention to -- okay. Well, why don't you just take a look at this statement. Read it to yourself, if you could, and see if that refreshes your recollection as to what you did that night.

A. [Witness reads document.]

Q. Did you read it?

A. Yes. I remember now.

Q. Okay. All right. So, when you got home from the Waffle House, where did you go?

A. I went down to Pat's house after I got home. That's another friend of mine's house down the street.

Q. Okay. And then -- then you went back to your mom's house around --

A. No. I stopped at Amy's next door, then went home.

Q. Okay. And, to your knowledge, had your mom already left for work --

A. Yes.

Q. -- when you stopped at Amy's?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And Amy told you that she'd seen your mom leave around --

MR. PORTER: Objection, Your Honor. This would be hearsay.

THE COURT: What is the question?

MR. PORTER: 'And Amy told you,' and that's enough for me to indicate that it would be hearsay.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: I'll rephrase it.

THE COURT: All right. Restate your question.

MS. ROGAN: Okay.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. Did you become aware that night as to what time your mom had left for work?

A. Yes.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, again, this would be hearsay, the contents of it. He can answer that question, but the contents of the statement would be hearsay.

THE COURT: Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: Well, the DA has already conceded that he can answer that question.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor --

THE COURT: But it's your next question he's about to object to. State your question.

MS. ROGAN: I'd like to ask him did you become aware that your mother left for work --

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. First of all, the question is objectionable. She's trying to get an out-of-court statement for the time that Ms. Thompson left not only through testifying, but through hearsay to this witness. If she wants to prove it, let them bring Amy Parker in.

THE COURT: Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: Can I ask him what -- if he knows what time his mom left for work that night?

THE COURT: I think you can sure ask that. I guess that's a yes or no. I don't know about the next question. Go ahead.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. Do you know what time your mother left for work that night?

A. No.

Q. Okay. After you'd stopped by Amy's house and went back to your house, what did you do then?

A. Watched some TV and fell asleep.

Q. Okay. Did you call anyone that evening from your home?

A. There was a couple of people had called my house. I don't -- I don't really remember calling anyone.

Q. Is it possible you did call someone?

A. I could have. I'm not sure.

Q. Do you recognize the pager number 341-4224?

A. No.

Q. Do you -- do you not recognize it at all or you just can't remember right now --

A. I don't -- I don't recognize it.

Q. -- who it might belong to?

A. I don't recognize who it might belong to.

Q. Okay. Were you making -- is it possible you were making calls to that pager during the week before your mother died?

A. Not to my knowledge. I don't -- I don't recognize the number.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I don't recognize the number.

THE COURT: Please speak up, Mr. Thompson, so everybody can hear you.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. So you don't know whether you made a call to that pager number at 11:00 o'clock that Thursday night or not?

A. Right.

Q. And you don't know for sure whether you might have called that pager number about seventeen times during that preceding week?

A. Right.

Q. Now, the next day, you were awoke by Ms. Chance, your mother's colleague from work?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And she told you something about the car at the Gwinnco Muffler?

A. Yes.

Q. When you went to the scene, the police were asking questions about what you had done the night before?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you believe that the police were asking you essentially to clear yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. You've told Mr. Porter on direct examination that you had pawned a rifle in the weeks after your mother was killed?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you remember when exactly it was you pawned that rifle?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember testifying at this deposition that we had that you had never pawned a rifle?

A. Not really.

Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection to look at -- this time, I have the page number. I'd like you to start at, I guess, Line 20, and go through 25 and let me just check -- yeah, go on through Line 4 or 5, I guess.

A. [Witness reads document.]

Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Thompson?

A. Yes. Yeah.

Q. All right. Do you now recall testifying under oath at this deposition --

A. Yes.

Q. -- that you had never pawned a rifle?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that if the police had that information, they must be mistaken about it?

A. I don't -- I don't know. I did, but it was for -- I had -- I had give the rifle to somebody else and they wanted me to pawn it for some money because they didn't have the -- no ID so --

Q. Okay. But my question to you was, did you -- you now admit that you did pawn a rifle?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when you previously testified, you told me that you had never pawned a rifle ever, you never owned a rifle?

A. No.

Q. And that's not true, is it?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. It's not true that you've never pawned a rifle?

A. Oh. No.

Q. Okay. After your mother died, you inherited some money from her insurance policies, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. You got about $115,000 altogether; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And shortly after you received the money, you purchased a Corvette automobile, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you paid for it in cash?

A. Yes.

Q. And you went on a cruise --

A. Yes.

Q. -- to the Caribbean or Mexico?

A. Mexico.

Q. Mexico. And you took your neighbor, Amy Parker, with you on the cruise?

A. Yes.

Q. You never paid for your mother's funeral though, did you, Mr. Thompson?

A. No.

Q. In fact, you were sued by the funeral home --

A. Yes.

Q. -- for that unpaid funeral?

A. Yes.

Q. And at this point no one has ever paid for that funeral?

A. Yes. It's been paid for.

Q. It has been paid. Have you paid for it?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Other people have paid for it?

A. Yes.

Q. You were married yourself, and your wife died.

You were divorced from your wife. Isn't that correct?

A. No.

Q. You were just estranged from her?

A. We were separated.

Q. Okay. And she died of a medical condition --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in March of 1993?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have a daughter?

A. Yes.

Q. Her -- she's about nine years old now?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you pay child support for your daughter?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you use any of the money that you'd gotten from the inheritance to establish a college fund for your daughter?

MR. PORTER: Objection, Your Honor. This is not relevant.

THE COURT: What's the relevance, Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: Well, I'm heading somewhere that's relevant. If I could approach the bench --

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, she's headed to trash Mr. Thompson because he didn't happen to spend the money in a way in which she agrees. It doesn't make it relevant.

THE COURT: The objection's sustained.

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. You sold your mother's trailer after her death; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You became the sole owner of the trailer?

A. Yes.

Q. And you sold the trailer for about $5,000?

A. Yes.

Q. How much was the trailer worth at that time?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this as irrelevant. This whole line of questioning is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Ms. Rogan?

MS. ROGAN: Your Honor, I think it's relevant to establish Mr. Thompson's bias and credibility.

THE COURT: The objection's sustained. Would you approach the bench, please.

[Counsel approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the jury.]

THE COURT: Where are we headed?

MS. ROGAN: Well, I have a number of questions about his use of the money that he obtained.

THE COURT: What does it matter?

MS. ROGAN: Well, I think it shows a pattern of stealing money or misusing money, for one thing.

THE COURT: All right. He's a beneficiary of an insurance policy. That's not stealing. He can spend it all over --

MS. ROGAN: Yeah, but I mean -- I guess I might phrase it better, spending money wantonly and having a need for money that doesn't seem to be satisfied by the normal --

THE COURT: It might be entertaining, but I don't think it's relevant.

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, it's a way to trash Michael Thompson in a way that -- and how he spent his money is his business.

THE COURT: I'm inclined to agree.

MR. PORTER: I mean, we might not be happy with it, and we might not agree with it; and, in fact, I don't agree with it, but it's his money, and he can do what the heck he wants with it.

THE COURT: Oh, I agree. I agree with that, unless there's some relevance to some questions that you've not stated at this point.

MS. ROGAN: Well, Your Honor, the bottom line is he's denied having stolen the money from his mother, in the first place, and I think that if we were allowed to develop evidence that I'm being prevented from developing, I think that there would be a strong indication that he did in fact steal that money.

THE COURT: Well, even if he did, even if he did, what does that show with respect to the issue of money?

MS. ROGAN: It shows that Mr. Chapel responded appropriately to the situation he was confronted with.

THE COURT: Well, I think -- if it does have any connection, it's mighty far removed. I'm going to sustain the objection to that line of questioning. Let's move on.

MS. ROGAN: Okay.

[Bench conference concluded.]

THE COURT: What's your question, please?

BY MS. ROGAN:

Q. After your mother was killed, you filed a lawsuit against Mr. Chapel, didn't you?

MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this as irrelevant. This has no relevance to whether or not Mike Chapel is guilty of murder, whether Mr. Thompson has sought any other remedy.

THE COURT: What is the --