Opinion ID: 853312
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation on Cross-Examination of Witnesses

Text: West argues that he was denied his right to present his defense when the trial court limited or excluded (1) evidence that Hollen's husband was abusive towards her; (2) examination of Hollen's fear of John Phillips, from whom Hollen allegedly purchased drugs; and (3) West's cross-examination of Jimmy Collins, whom West owed money and who visited West at work the evening of Hollen's murder. West asserts that this testimony was relevant under Indiana Rule of Evidence 401, and that his right to confrontation was therefore impermissibly restricted in contravention of the Sixth Amendment of United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution. West asserts that the excluded testimony would have demonstrated that there were others who had problems with Hollen, and that the jury would have found reasonable doubt if it had heard this testimony. The right to cross-examine is one of the fundamental rights of our criminal justice system. Smith v. State, 721 N.E.2d 213, 219 (Ind.1999) (quoting Pigg v. State, 603 N.E.2d 154, 155 (Ind.1992)). However, trial judges retain wide latitude... to impose reasonable limits ... based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. Thornton v. State, 712 N.E.2d 960, 963 (Ind.1999) (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)).
On cross-examination of Hollen's husband at trial, defense counsel asked Mr. Hollen, Didn't you put a bruise on her back the size of a softball. The State objected and reminded the court that the trial court had granted the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior domestic abuse in the Hollen's marriage. Defense counsel apologized, and the court instructed the jury to disregard the statement. West argues that evidence of domestic abuse was highly relevant in view of the brutal nature of Hollen's death and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Mr. Hollen to be cross-examined on this point. Although it is difficult to see how this evidence could lead to anything beyond speculation, we need not consider that issue because we agree with the State that West has waived this argument by failing to make an offer to prove. In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must make an offer to prove, setting forth the grounds for admission of the evidence and the relevance of the testimony. Ind. Evidence Rule 103(a); accord Noble v. State, 725 N.E.2d 842, 846 (Ind.2000). West made no offer to prove after the State objected to defense counsel's line of questioning. Thus, the trial court had no opportunity to reconsider its ruling on the motion in limine and West has waived this claim.
The trial court granted the State's motion in limine seeking to suppress any evidence relating to Hollen's drug use, and, consequently, evidence relating to Hollen's relationship to John Phillips, who allegedly regularly supplied Hollen with cocaine. At trial, defense counsel attempted to suggest that Phillips could have killed Hollen by establishing that Phillips had been at the Clark station the day of Hollen's murder. West argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit evidence of Hollen's drug purchases from Phillips. West also notes that [Phillips'] testimony regarding where he was at the time of the murders was also inconsistent and incredible. Defense counsel questioned Phillips about his whereabouts on the day of Hollen's murder, as well as the fact that police had taken blood and hair samples from him. West has not established how the evidence of Hollen's drug use raises anything more than speculation that a third party may have committed the crime. See Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563, 567-68 (Ind. 2000) (evidence of motive of third party to commit a crime is relevant, but was properly excluded because of absence of evidence linking crime to a third party). The trial court was within its discretion to restrict exploration of collateral issues by excluding speculation as to the possibility that Phillips was the killer. As this Court recently noted, evidence of a victim's prior drug use is often irrelevant, and, if relevant at all to a collateral issue, outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Indiana Rule of Evidence 403. See Jenkins v. State, 729 N.E.2d 147, 149 (Ind.2000). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting examination of Phillips on this issue.
Lastly, West argues that Collins should have been allowed to testify that he knew Roy Rogers to be a drug dealer, that he once lived with Rogers, and that Lori Rogers, a witness for the State, frequently purchased drugs from Rogers. Evidence of a witness' prior drug use is ordinarily irrelevant, although it may be relevant as to (1) the witness' ability to recall the events on the date in question, (2) the witness' inability to relate the facts at trial, or (3) the witness' mental capacity. Williams v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195, 199 (Ind.1997). West does not assert that this testimony would have been relevant for any of these reasons. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to permit testimony as to Collins' association with Rogers or his knowledge concerning a State witness' drug use.