Opinion ID: 1352908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: control of cross-examination was proper.

Text: Appellant contends that his right to confront and cross-examine Detective Green was violated when the trial court, after the Commonwealth and defense counsel had questioned Detective Green, allowed the jury to ask him questions without Appellant being able to follow up. We disagree. Trial courts retain broad discretion to regulate cross-examination. In Commonwealth v. Maddox, Ky., 955 S.W.2d 718, 721 (1997), we noted, Defendants cannot run rough-shod, doing precisely as they please, simply because cross-examination is underway. So long as a reasonably complete picture of the witness' veracity, bias and motivation is developed, the judge enjoys power and discretion to set appropriate boundaries. Appellant was able to reasonably complete the picture of Detective Green's veracity, bias and motivation. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defense questions after Detective Green was questioned by the jury. Further, the trial court properly determined the duration of cross-examination. Caldwell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 503 S.W.2d 485 (1972); Stanford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 793 S.W.2d 112 (1990). The judgment and sentence of the Jefferson Circuit Court are affirmed. LAMBERT, C.J., COOPER, GRAVES, KELLER and WINTERSHEIMER, J.J., concur. JOHNSTONE, J., dissents in a separate opinion in which STUMBO, J., joins.