 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bush4/14/2004
im where to find the 9mm pistol. On cross-examination, the defense questioned the detective briefly about his interviews with May and Cordell Nelson. However, it did not question him about his interview with the defendant. On redirect, the state asked Detective Goodwin, "Mr. Bush told you that he furnished the shotgun, drove the car, and was present at the time of the robbery. Did you have any reason to question that?" At that point, the defense objected on the grounds that the question went beyond the scope of cross-examination because the defense had not questioned Detective Goodwin about the defendant's interview. The trial court overruled the objection, and the state asked the detective if the defendant ever retracted the statement in which he claimed that he gave the shotgun to May, drove to Mr. Lopez's house, and watched the four other men go into the home. The detective testified that the defendant never retracted his statement.
The "scope of redirect examination, is within the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." State v. Chearis, 995 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Although the Tennessee Rules of Evidence do not address the scope or manner of redirect examination of a witness, "Tennessee law is well-settled that redirect examination can broach topics raised on cross-examination even though those matters were not inquired into on direct examination." State v. Baker, 966 S.W.2d 429, 433 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Moreover, a trial court "has discretion to permit the witness on redirect to testify about new facts that were not mentioned on direct or cross-examination." Neil P. Cohen et al., Tennessee Law of Evidence § 6.11 (4th ed. 2000).
The defendant argues that the state's questioning was improper because it went beyond the scope of the detective 's cross-examination testimony. However, Detective Goodwin testified on direct examination that the defendant admitted giving May the gun, driving to Mr. Lopez's house, and being present at the robbery. On redirect, the state simply asked the detective if he had any reason to doubt the defendant's statement and if the defendant ever retracted the statement. This subject matter already had been broached on direct examination, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling the defendant's objection.
V. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MICHAEL MAY
The defendant argues that the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of Michael May. He argues that the questioning was appropriate in order to show that May was biased against him. The state claims that the trial court properly limited the defendant's cross-examination of May. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
During the defendant's cross-examination of May, the following exchange occurred:
Q. You lied to [Detective Goodwin], didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell Detective Goodwin in your statement to him some lies?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So you lied some, and you told the truth some.
A. Yes. I lied about my involvement at first as far as being there with them. That's what I lied about. But as far as to who set the ordeal up as far as the robbery, I did not lie about that.
Q. You wouldn't lie up here in front of this jury, would you?
A. No, sir, I wouldn't.
Q. Just to send Mr. Bush to prison?
At that point, the state objected on the basis that the question was argumentative, and the trial court sustained the objection. The defense's questioning of May continued as follows:
Q. Didn't [Detectiv
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
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|