This is why you have to be super careful when you ask questions of a witness in a criminal case:
"The prosecutor then elicited the following testimony:
Q. And did she tell you if this touching was done under or over her clothing on
her top area or both? A. Both.
Q. Did she describe the touching of her top area under her clothing to have
happened more than once?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she describe the touching of her top area under her clothing to have
happened more than once?
A. Yes.
As the People observe, the last two questions are exactly the same, and the
answers to both of those questions establish only that defendant touched the victim’s
chest under her clothing more than once. The People concede that '[r]eview of the
record does not demonstrate that the prosecutor [ever] asked Detective Price whether [the
victim] described the touching of her top over her clothing to have happened more than
once.' (Italics added.) It may be that the prosecutor meant one of her questions to cover
touching over the victim’s clothing but misspoke, or it may be that the prosecutor did, in
fact, ask about the touching over the victim’s clothing but the court reporter did not
record the question correctly. Whatever the case, however, it makes no difference for our
purposes. On the record before us, there is no evidence that defendant touched the
victim’s chest over her clothing more than once. Accordingly, as defendant contends, the
evidence is insufficient to support his conviction on count 3, and therefore we must
reverse that conviction."
Oops.
Not that it's going to make much of a difference in the present case. Defendant's still going away for decades on the other counts.
But still. Gotta be careful.
