State v. Ducker3/25/1999
favor of or prejudiced against a party or another witness." Bias is an important ground for impeachment of a witness and is an aid for the trier of fact in assessing the weight to be afforded the witness' testimony. See Advisory Commission Comments, Tenn. R. Evid. 616; State v. Reid, 882 S.W.2d 423, 427 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Any relationship of a party to a witness which might influence the testimony of the witness is a proper subject of impeaching evidence. See State v. Williams, 827 S.W.2d 804, 808 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Our courts have long since recognized that witnesses are often as much influenced in testifying by feelings of friendship or hostility to parties to the case as by direct pecuniary interest in the result of the trial, and for this reason, proof of the relations of the witness to the parties may be shown. See Williams, 827 S.W.2d at 808 (citing Creeping Bear v. State, 113 Tenn. 322, 87 S.W. 653 (1905)). See also State v. Lewis, 803 S.W.2d 260 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983)). It is a well established principle that bias or prejudice of a witness is always relevant regardless of whether the matter stems from a sexual relationship. Thus, the nature of the appellant's relationship with Mr. Majors was relevant to show bias. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Additionally, we cannot conclude that evidence of the nature of the appellant's relationship with Mr. Majors was more prejudicial than probative. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403. The jury was already aware of circumstances from which they could infer the nature of the relationship between the appellant and Majors. Accordingly, we conclude that this evidence was properly admitted by the trial court. This issue is without merit.
VI. Prosecutorial Misconduct During Closing Argument
During closing argument by the State, the prosecutor made the following remarks:
"Then, when everyone left that room but Micah Majors, she had another opportunity to care for these children. If she was just going to talk to Micah Majors, she could have taken those children to the room. She had done that many times. I submit, ladies and gentlemen, that more went on in that room than just talk. Use your common sense. You know what they did."
The defense objected to this statement, but was overruled by the trial court. The appellant contends that the statements made by the prosecutor were clearly erroneous since he was arguing facts which were refuted by the evidence elicited at trial.
Our state courts have recognized that closing argument is a valuable privilege for both the State and the defense and, accordingly, have afforded wide latitude to counsel in presenting final argument to the jury. State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726, 736 (Tenn. 1998). Notwithstanding, closing argument is subject to the discretion of the trial court, which will be affirmed on appeal absent an abuse thereof, see State v. Tate, No. 02C01-9605-CR-00164 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Dec. 3, 1997) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tenn. 1978)), and must be temperate, predicated on evidence introduced during the trial, and relevant to the issues being tried. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 736. The bounds of proper argument largely depend upon the facts in evidence, the character of the trial, and the conduct of opposing counsel, State v. Townes, No. 02C01-9505-CC-00140 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Nov. 19, 1996), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Jul. 21, 1997) (citations omitted), and may address any relevant and proper subject. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 29.1(b). Moreover, both the prosecution and the defense must be allowed to argue not only the facts in evide
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|