 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Ogrod12/30/2003
lation if he did not cooperate, and that police had not allowed Appellant to contact Mr. Blust despite his repeated requests. Id. at 130-132.
The Commonwealth claims that it was entitled to cross-examine Mr. Blust with regard to the following: (1) subjects counsel for Appellant raised on direct-examination --so as to refute his claim that he was in good standing; and (2) his prior contact with police --to establish that Mr. Blust was biased against police and may have fabricated the claim that police wrongfully induced Appellant to confess. Brief of Appellant at 28. The Commonwealth cross-examined Mr. Blust with regard to his contention that he was a member of the bar in good standing based on their knowledge that Mr. Blust had not paid his annual fee. N.T. 9/8/93 at 134. The Commonwealth also sought to show that Mr. Blust was biased and may have had motive to fabricate his testimony. Id. at 148. The prosecutor asked him "you don't like cops much. Do you?" Id. To that end, the Commonwealth asked questions regarding whether Mr. Blust bore enmity towards police officers due to the manner in which they treated him when: (1) they arrested him for being intoxicated and being abusive to a police officer (Id. at 148); and (2) another arrest that led to his conviction for DUI. Id. at 149.
After reviewing the transcript, we hold that the trial court did not err by allowing cross-examination during the suppression hearing with respect to issues raised on direct examination and the issue of bias. Regarding issues raised on direct examination, cross-examination is permissible within the sound discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Begley, 780 A.2d 605 (Pa. 2001) (finding it permissible to address the claim of Begley that he was a member of the Marine Corps). On cross-examination,
an attorney is entitled to question the witness about subjects raised during direct examination as well as any facts tending to refute inferences arising from matters raised during direct testimony. Similarly, an attorney may discredit a witness by cross-examining the witness about omissions or acts that are inconsistent with his testimony. However, the scope and limits of cross-examination is vested in the trial court's discretion and that discretion will not be reversed unless the trial court has clearly abused its discretion or made an error of law.
Id. at 627 (citations omitted). The cross-examination of Mr. Blust with regard to his claim that he was an attorney in good standing was clearly within the scope of the direct examination. Accordingly, there is no basis for a finding that the trial court abused its discretion.
The trial court also correctly allowed the Commonwealth to inquire into the prior experience of Mr. Blust with police to show that he did not like police and that his bias may have caused him to improperly assert police misconduct. Commonwealth v. Butler, 601 A.2d 268, 271 (1991). In Butler, we explained, "the credibility of a witness may be impeached by evidence which tends to show that the witness had an interest in the outcome of the trial, or that the witness' testimony may be untruthful, or that the witness may possess a bias which colors his testimony." Id. (internal citations omitted). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Williams, 570 A.2d 75 (Pa. 1990) we explained that:
a party against whom a witness is called always has the right to show by cross-examination that a witness is biased or has an interest in the result of the trial. In the instant case, the introduction of . . . [the witness'] unsentenced convictions was relevant to show . . . [the witness'] potential bias against Draper because of the activities of his police officer father. Since
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|