 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ponder v. State6/28/2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
[No. 4239 - June 28, 2000]
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Brian C. Shortell, Judge.
A jury found Travan Alexander Ponder guilty of two counts of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony, for selling cocaine to a confidential police informant, Grace Comegys. Ponder argues that Superior Court Judge Brian C. Shortell erred by limiting his cross-examination of Comegys, admitting hearsay, allowing in evidence of Ponder's prior bad acts, and issuing flawed jury instructions. We find no error and affirm.
Anchorage Police Department Detective Ronald Spohnholz conducted an undercover investigation of drug activity in a large apartment complex at 4631 Juneau, in Anchorage. During the course of his investigation, Detective Spohnholz made three buys from Grace Comegys. Comegys told Detective Spohnholz that she was obtaining cocaine from several apartments within the complex. After the third buy, Spohnholz informed Comegys that he was a police officer and arranged to have her work as a confidential informant. The police did not promise Comegys that she would not be prosecuted or arrested in exchange for her cooperation. On April 19, 1997, Spohnholz obtained a Glass warrant, put a recording device on Comegys, and conducted a controlled buy from the suspected dealers in apartment No. 9 of the complex using Comegys as the buyer. Comegys testified at trial that she made two buys of crack cocaine from Ponder in apartment No. 9. Police subsequently obtained a search warrant for apartment No. 9 and discovered Ponder's fingerprints in the apartment. Ponder was tried before a jury on December 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1997. The jury found him guilty on both counts.
Ponder first contends that Judge Shortell violated his right to confrontation by limiting his cross-examination of Comegys. The accused in a criminal case has a constitutional right to fully cross-examine the witnesses who testify in his trial to establish bias. But the trial court has discretion to limit cross-examination as long as the jury receives adequate information to allow it to evaluate the bias, prejudice, or motive of the witness:
Limitations on the right to cross- examination amount to constitutional error when they impair the accused's ability to establish bias, prejudice, or motive. However, the scope of cross-examination is generally a matter within the trial court's discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs only when the jury fails to receive adequate information to allow it to understand and evaluate fairly a witness' potential bias, prejudice, or motive.
During his cross-examination of Comegys, Ponder thoroughly cross-examined her on her hopes to avoid prosecution and imprisonment by cooperating with the state, her prior experiences in custody, her knowledge of prison conditions, and the lengths to which she might go to avoid prison. Ponder contends that he was unable to get satisfactory answers to his questions because Judge Shortell unreasonably limited his questioning. But our review of the record establishes that Judge Shortell allowed Ponder to thoroughly cross-examine Comegys. Ponder's real complaint is that Comegy refused to give the answer he desired. A review of the cross-examination indicates that Judge Shortell intervened in Ponder's cross-examination only after Ponder attempted to ask questions which had already been asked and answered. We accordingly find no error.
Ponder next argues that Judge Shortell erred in allowing the state to elicit hearsay from Detective Spohnholz when he was testifying about his investigation. The first
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|