 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Velasquez12/1/1999
t of jail until he agreed to work with the police as an informant. Counsel questioned Gonzalez regarding the reduction of charges for his parents, as well as a DUI Gonzalez had been arrested for.
[ ] Yet, Velasquez claims his counsel was not given enough leeway to question Gonzalez regarding his drug use and whether the police trusted him. Counsel for Velasquez asked Gonzalez: "The police and prosecution didn't trust you, right?" Later counsel asked Gonzalez: "They [the police and prosecution] thought you were going to use drugs, right?" Objections to both questions were sustained. These sustained objections did not impinge on Velasquez's rights. Both questions asked the witness to speculate on someone's opinion about him. Furthermore, as we already noted, counsel was given latitude to question Gonzalez on his motives for testifying.
[ ] Velasquez also argues his rights were violated as counsel was prohibited from questioning Gonzalez regarding his bail. Velasquez contends it was necessary to go into the amount of the bond to demonstrate Gonzalez was not trusted by authorities; and, since Gonzalez could not get out of jail because of the high bond amount, it was a motivation for Gonzalez to work with the prosecution. During the opening statement of Velasquez's counsel, the district court prohibited counsel from addressing the bail in Gonzalez's case because of the likelihood that evidence would not be admitted.
However, during cross-examination of Gonzalez, the district court allowed the following exchange between counsel for Velasquez and Gonzalez:
Q: You cut a deal with the prosecutor, right? A: Yes.
Q: And suddenly because of that you got out of jail, didn't you? A: Yes.
Q: Bond was lowered, right? A: Yes.
Q: And you got out? A: Yes.
This exchange, along with the aforementioned leeway counsel was given to establish a link between Gonzalez's plea bargain and his testimony against Velasquez, demonstrates counsel was given ample opportunity to expose weaknesses in Gonzalez's testimony. See Messner, 1998 ND 151, 10, 583 N.W.2d 109. We conclude Velasquez's right to confrontation was not violated.
[ ] We affirm.
|