 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bush4/14/2004
e Goodwin] tell you that Mr. Bush said you were the shooter?
A. Yes, sir, he said that.
Q. And that made you mad at Mr. Bush, didn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you remember Detective Goodwin [told] you that he'd put in a good word to the DA and make a recommendation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you would say that Mr. Bush was the shooter.
A. Yes, sir.
The defendant claims that the trial court erred by sustaining the state's objection. He contends that the question was proper in order to show May's lack of credibility and bias against him.
As previously stated, the propriety, scope, manner, and control of cross-examination of witnesses rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Coffee, 188 Tenn. at 4, 216 S.W.2d at 703; Dishman, 915 S.W.2d at 463. The scope of cross-examination extends to "any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility." Tenn. R. Evid. 611(b). Moreover, a party "may offer evidence by cross-examination, extrinsic evidence, or both, that a witness is biased in favor of or prejudiced against a party or another witness." Tenn. R. Evid. 616.
We hold that the trial court erred by sustaining the state's objection. The defense attorney's asking May if he would lie in order to send the defendant to prison did not require May to derive an inference or a conclusion and, therefore, was not argumentative. Nevertheless, the defendant is not entitled to relief. During cross-examination, the defense established that May lied during his initial interviews with Detective Goodwin and that May was angry with the defendant because the defendant had accused May of shooting Mr. Lopez. Thus, the defense was able to get before the jury that May lacked credibility and was biased against the defendant. The trial court's error was harmless. See T.R.A.P. 36(a)
VI. STATE'S UNDISCLOSED WITNESS
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the state to call a witness to testify when the witness was not on the state's witness list and her testimony was irrelevant. The state claims that the trial court properly ruled the witness could testify. We agree with the state.
During Delmiccio Tigg's and Michael May's cross-examination testimony, the defense attempted to impeach them by asking if their cases had been set for trial and why they were not being tried with the defendant. Tigg testified that although he was originally indicted with the defendant, his case had not been set for trial. He also testified that he had talked with the prosecutor about a possible plea agreement in return for his testifying against the defendant. May testified that he had been indicted with the defendant and that he was going to plead guilty. On the second day of trial, the state announced that it was going to call the Rutherford County Criminal Court Deputy Clerk to testify that Tigg's and May's trials had been scheduled to start the same day as the defendant's trial in order to show that their cases were "on track" and "not just floundering around somewhere." The defense objected on the grounds that the clerk had not been included on the state's witness list. The trial court determined that the defense should not have been surprised that the state would want to call the clerk and that the clerk could testify because "the State has a right to show that the cases were set." Deputy Clerk Gina Gammon testified that Tigg's and May's trials had been set to begin the same day as the defendant's trial.
The defendant claims that the trial court erred by allowing Ms. Gammon to testify because she was not included on the state's witness l
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.
|
|