State v. Bush4/14/2004
BR>
The defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him includes the right to conduct meaningful cross-examination. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51, 107 S. Ct. 989, 998 (1987); State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317, 332 (Tenn. 1992). Denial of the defendant's right to effective cross-examination is "`constitutional error of the first magnitude'" and may violate the defendant's right to a fair trial. State v. Hill, 598 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1111 (1974)). "The propriety, scope, manner and control of the cross-examination of witnesses, however, rests within the discretion of the trial court." State v. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d 458, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Coffee v. State, 188 Tenn. 1, 4, 216 S.W.2d 702, 703 (1948). Furthermore, "a defendant's right to confrontation does not preclude a trial court from imposing limits upon cross-examination which take into account such factors as harassment, prejudice, issue confusion, witness safety, or merely repetitive or marginally relevant interrogation." State v. Reid, 882 S.W.2d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). This court will not disturb the limits that a trial court has placed upon cross-examination unless the court has unreasonably restricted the right. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d at 463; State v. Fowler, 213 Tenn. 239, 253, 373 S.W.2d 460, 466 (1963).
The defendant claims that he was improperly restricted from asking the detective about Mr. Lopez's identifying May as the shooter at the preliminary hearing, about differences between the defendant's and May's hairstyles, and about Mr. Lopez's testimony regarding the men's facial features. However, we note that the detective testified on cross-examination that Mr. Lopez testified at the hearing that he could see the shooter's features and that Mr. Lopez claimed he did not take his eyes off the shooter from the time the shooter came into the bedroom. Thus, the defense was able to get before the jury that Mr. Lopez stared at the shooter during the robbery and identified a co-defendant as the shooter at the preliminary hearing.
Ordinarily, one witness's opinion regarding the credibility of another witness's testimony is irrelevant and improper. See State v. Schimpf, 782 S.W.2d 186, 194 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989) (stating that witness credibility "is a matter only for the jury"). In any event, Rule 103(a)(2), Tenn. R. Evid., provides that in order to reverse a trial court's ruling to exclude evidence, a substantial right of a party must be affected and, if not apparent from the context, "the substance of the evidence and the specific evidentiary basis supporting admission" must be made in an offer of proof. The defendant did not make an offer of proof as to Detective Goodwin's testimony, and we cannot speculate as to his proposed testimony or its purpose. We conclude that the trial court did not err.
IV. REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE GOODWIN
The defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the state to ask Detective Goodwin questions during redirect examination that went beyond the scope of his cross-examination testimony. The state claims that the defense opened the door to the questioning and that, in any event, the defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by any error. We hold that the trial court properly allowed the state to question the detective.
During Detective Goodwin's direct testimony, he stated that he interviewed the defendant and that the defendant admitted loaning the shotgun to May, driving to Mr. Lopez's house, and being present at the robbery. He said the defendant also told h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|