Opinion ID: 1270288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Jerry Ward

Text: Johnson argues that the trial court erred when it refused to permit Johnson to contradict the testimony of Jerry Ward. We disagree. Ward was in a jail cell next to Johnson for approximately six months. During this period, Ward and Johnson frequently spoke to one another about their cases and passed notes back and forth. Ward was called by the prosecution to testify at Johnson's trial. During cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred between Johnson's attorney and Ward: Q. Now, would you consider yourself easygoing, laid back, levelheaded? A. Would I? I would love to consider myself that way. Q. And really don't get frustrated or excited or overly emotional, is that correct? A. I can't say overly emotional. I get frustrated, overly excited and emotional, sir. Q. Okay. But for the most part, you are a pretty even keel type person? A. I would hate to flatter myself and say yes and you come up with something derogatory Q. No. You go right ahead and flatter yourself, Mr. Ward. That's fine. A. No, I'm not going to do that. I'm going toI'm going to say that I'mI'm far from being an angel, sir, but I'm not even in the running for the devil. Q. Mr. Ward, I didn't ask you whether you were an angel. Are youdo you consider yourself rational? A. For the most part, yes. Q. Okay. A. Not entirely. At this point, defense counsel attempted to cross-examine Ward with a letter Ward had written to another inmate while in jail. In the letter, among other derogatory remarks, Ward advises the inmate, I could in fact be in error of my opinion of you being an ass___. You could in fact qualify to be considered awhat I have been heard referred to as a complete ass___, and I am known for my proficiency in giving credit where there is credit due. The prosecutor made a relevancy objection which the trial court sustained on the ground that the letter would tend to confuse the jury. Johnson argues the letter was relevant to contradicting Ward's characterization of himself as a rational, calm person. We disagree. `Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 401, SCRE. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. Rule 611(b), SCRE. Considerable latitude is allowed in cross-examination to test a witness's credibility. Martin v. Dunlap, 266 S.C. 230, 222 S.E.2d 8 (1976). However, a trial judge may impose reasonable limits on cross-examination based upon concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, witness safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. State v. Jenkins, 322 S.C. 360, 474 S.E.2d 812 (Ct.App.1996). An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 446 S.E.2d 411 (1994). Here, Ward did not characterize himself as a totally rational or calm person. He admitted he was far from being an angel, and he could get frustrated, overly excited and emotional. Moreover, the jury was aware of Ward's lengthy criminal record, which included escape from prison. Thus, the letter was not relevant to any issue at trial, including Ward's credibility. It merely demonstrated that Ward was capable of hurling expletives at other inmates. It was, in fact, consistent with his characterization of himself. We conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the letter on the ground that it would tend to confuse the jury.