Opinion ID: 2345197
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross-Examination Regarding Bias of Officer Eddinger

Text: Finally, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from asking and eliciting answers from Officer Eddinger regarding bias. He reiterates that the premise of his defense was that he was unaware that Officer Wertz was a police officer, and that, at the moment he fired his weapon, believed that his life was in danger. Because the jury's credibility determination of Appellant's testimony regarding his state of mind was critical to the defense, he maintains that it was imperative for him to be able to adequately challenge Officer Eddinger's credibility. He asserts that the following exchange demonstrates that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination and precluded him from establishing Officer Eddinger's bias. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did it ever go through your mind what a jury might think if [Appellant] did not know that Wertz was a police officer? OFFICER EDDINGER: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: And as you sit there today, are you concerned what the jury may think if he did not know PROSECUTOR: Objection. DEFENSE COUNSEL:Wertz was a police officer? THE COURT: Objection sustained. DEFENSE COUNSEL: I understand, just looking at you earlier today, that you were upset rehashing, thinking about your partner being shot, being on the sidewalk. Do you, based upon what took place that evening, hold any sense of guilt or responsibility? PROSECUTOR: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Do you have an interest in the outcome of this trial, Officer Eddinger? OFFICER EDDINGER: Sure. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Do you want to see [Appellant] put to death? PROSECUTOR: Objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can we see the Court at side bar? THE COURT: No, you can't. You can ask another question. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Court's indulgence, Your Honor. (Pause.) DEFENSE COUNSEL: Nothing further. N.T. 8/4/2008 at 190-191. It is clear that the trial court has the discretion to determine the scope and limits of cross-examination and that this Court cannot reverse those findings absent a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law. Commonwealth v. Nolen, 535 Pa. 77, 634 A.2d 192, 195 (1993). A thorough review of the record indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in the instant case. The trial court sustained the three aforementioned Commonwealth objections because the answers being solicited constituted a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, as it is inconceivable that the jury could have believed that Officer Eddinger held the man who admitted to intentionally killing his partner and friend in high regard. Trial Court Opinion at 14. The court held that the question regarding whether Officer Eddinger held himself responsible for his partner's death was speculative, overly broad, and irrelevant. Id. Similarly, it concluded that Officer Eddinger's views regarding the death penalty were irrelevant. Id. The court further noted: Aside from these two particular questions, the record reflects that defense counsel was otherwise permitted to fully cross-examine Officer Eddinger regarding any potential bias. Officer Eddinger testified that he was close with Officer Wertz, that they had been partners for about a year, that they had been to each other's homes, and that they discussed their families and hobbies. (N.T. at 162-63). Furthermore, Officer Eddinger testified that after the shooting, he wanted to ride along in the ambulance with Officer Wertz because he was concerned and wanted to make sure that his partner was going to be okay. (N.T. at 185). Trial Court Opinion at 14. Thus, it is clear from the record that the trial court did not limit Appellant's crossexamination of Officer Eddinger regarding bias, but merely exercised its discretion in accordance with the law and properly sustained three Commonwealth objections. The first question raised by defense counsel, to which the Commonwealth successfully objected, inquired whether Officer Eddinger was concerned about what the jury may have thought if Appellant did not know Officer Wertz was a policeman. The second inquiry delved into whether Officer Eddinger held any sense of guilt or responsibility for the shooting. The final question to which the Commonwealth successfully objected inquired whether Officer Eddinger wanted to see Appellant put to death. It is self-evident that these lines of inquiry are irrelevant to the task facing the jury. Appellant's claim, therefore, fails. Having disposed of Appellant's claims, we must affirm the sentence of death unless we determine that it was a product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(i). Following a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the sentence of death was not a product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, but was based upon the evidence presented at trial. Additionally, we conclude that the sentence complies with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(1)(iv), which requires that a sentence of death be imposed when the jury finds one or more aggravating circumstances that outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Finally, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(ii), we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support at least one aggravating circumstance. Accordingly, we affirm the verdicts and sentence of death. [19] Chief Justice CASTILLE, and Justice EAKIN, Justice TODD, Justice McCAFFERY and Justice GREENSPAN join the opinion. Justice SAYLOR concurs in the result.