Opinion ID: 1695207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: was the defendant improperly denied his right to cross-examine the state's chief witness to show bias, prejudice or motive?

Text: The defendants allege that they were improperly denied their right to cross-examine Troy, the confidential informant, to show bias, prejudice, or motive under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 616. They allegedly were denied an opportunity to explore facts about favorable treatment Troy supposedly received from Agent Glyniss in exchange for his favorable testimony. Allegedly, Agent Glyniss had previously gotten Troy out of trouble in Pike and Walthall Counties. The defendants cite Suan v. State, 511 So.2d 144, 147 (Miss. 1987), as their basis for this argument. Suan held in pertinent part that: Evidence that a material witness has received favored treatment at the hands of law enforcement authorities, particularly where that witness is himself subject to prosecution, is probative of the witness' interest or bias and may be developed through cross-examination or otherwise presented to the jury. See Malone v. State, 486 So.2d 367, 368-69 (Miss. 1986); Hall v. State, 476 So.2d 26, 28 (Miss. 1985); Barnes v. State, 460 So.2d 126, 131 (Miss. 1984). The defense was specifically permitted to ask Troy if Agent Glyniss had gotten him out of trouble in the past. Also, not once in Zenobia's proffered testimony as a defense witness was it alleged or even insinuated by her that Troy received favorable treatment to illustrate his possible bias. Likewise, the defendants did not question Agent Glyniss on cross-examination as to whether he had ever given Troy any favorable treatment by getting him out of trouble. The only possibility that the defendants were denied their right to show such bias could have been in Troy's testimony wherein several State objections were sustained on relevancy grounds. However, excerpts from the trial transcript illustrate the defense was given wide latitude pursuant to MRE 611(b) to show bias under MRE 616. Cross-examination of Troy Magee by Mr. Ott: Q: You said that you met Agent Glyniss in 1989? A: Yes, sir. Q: Were you doing drugs at that time? A: No, sir. Q: You weren't doing drugs in 1989, is that right? A: I ... BY MR. RUSHING: Your Honor, I object to the line of questioning. BY THE COURT: Overrule the objection. I believe he answered. BY MR. OTT: Just wanted to be sure. A: As I stated the last court time I was here, that I had tried marijuana early in the year '89. Q: Uh-huh. You said that you didn't have any other kind of controlled substances after 1989 when you smoked marijuana, is that right? A: Yes, sir. Q: Are you sure you don't want to change that testimony today? A: No, sir. Q: Okay. Have you ever smoked crack cocaine? A: No, I haven't. Q: In the year 1990 when you were working and trying to earn this extra money as an informant, were you smoking and consuming crack cocaine yourself for your own personal use? A: No, sir. ..... Q: Do you know Zenobia Isaac? A: Yes, I do. Q: And who is she? A: She's a friend. Q: How close a friends is she? A: We are good friends. Q: And she stayed with you some and she was living with you, wasn't she, during 1990? BY MR. SMITH: Object to relevancy, you Honor, unless counsel can show the relevance to this case. BY THE COURT: What is the relevancy? BY MR. OTT: The relevancy, your Honor, is to prove how well she knew him and he knew her. BY THE COURT: Well, he said that he knows her. BY MR. OTT: Yes, sir, I'm inquiring as to the extent of how well they know each other. BY THE COURT: I hear your question, I understand your question, but I don't see the relevancy of it. BY MR. OTT: Okay. I'll come back to that. BY MR. SMITH: Your honor, we object to counsel  . BY THE COURT: I don't know whether you'll come back to it or not, Mr. Ott. BY MR. OTT: Well, we'll try to. BY THE COURT: All right, sir. Q: Now, Mr. Magee, since you became an informant, your income from informing on people determines the amount of income you make, doesn't it? A: I don't understand your question. Q: Okay. Would you say that the more people you snitch on, the more money you make? A: I have a job to try to put drug dealers in jail, and you got a job to try to keep then out of jail. Q: And you know that the more people you have arrested, the more money you make, isn't that true? A: If I go out and bust someone I will get paid for it. Q: Okay, Let me ask you again. The more people you have arrested, the more money you make, isn't that right? A: Yes, sir. Q: Okay. And in fact you averaged during 1990 seven hundred dollars a month in cash money? A: Yes, sir. Q: And this all was paid from Mr. C.V. Glyniss? A: Yes, sir. Q: Okay. And isn't Mr. Glyniss known as the Lone Ranger? BY MR. SMITH: Objection to relevancy, your Honor. BY THE COURT: I'll let him answer that. A: I don't know about the Lone Ranger, you asked me that same question before today, the last time I was in Court. Q: And you are still saying you didn't know him as the Lone Ranger, is that what you're saying? A: Yes, sir. Q: You're going to give the same answer to that question? A: Yes, sir. Q: You didn't make any record of this income that you earned as an informant, did you? A: No, sir. Q: You don't have any income tax records  BY MR. SMITH: Objection to relevancy, your Honor. BY THE COURT: I sustain. Q: Isn't it true that the Lone Ranger or Mr. C.V. Glyniss has gotten you out of trouble before in the past? BY MR. SMITH: Object to relevancy, your Honor. BY THE COURT: I'll let him answer that. A: No, sir, he hadn't got me out of trouble. Q: Never gotten you out of trouble? A: (No answer). Q: None? BY MR. SMITH: Objection, the witness has answered the question. BY THE COURT: I'll let him answer. This is cross-examination. Q: Sir? A: No, sir. Q: Do you deny that C.V. Glyniss took care of your hot checks for you? A: No, sir, he didn't. Q: He didn't? A: No, sir. Q: You  A:  I have called him about it, but I took care of it myself. He didn't do anything about it. Q: Do you carry a Walthall County Sheriff's badge in your glove box of your car? A: No, sir. Q: Do you carry a nine millimeter pistol with a shoulder holster? A: No, sir. Q: You don't have any permit to carry such a weapon, do you, sir? A: No, sir. Q: Do you carry a .25 automatic? A: No, sir. Q: This past New Year's Eve did you assault anybody with this .25? BY MR. SMITH: Object BY MR. RUSHING: Objection your Honor. BY THE COURT: Sustained. Q: Have you ever been in trouble for drugs? BY MR. SMITH: Object, your Honor. BY THE COURT: Mr. Ott you know that's not relevant. I sustain the objection. Q: In January of 1981 did you sell cocaine for your own use? BY MR. RUSHING: Objection your Honor. BY THE COURT: Mr. Ott, all persons are presumed to be not guilty; now, if there has been a conviction, that is something that is different, but unless there has been a conviction all persons are presumed to be not guilty of any offense, even though they are charged with an indictment. They are presumed to be not guilty unless and until proven guilty and unless there is a conviction. We have discussed this already. BY MR. OTT: Yes, sir. Will the Court's ruling permit me to present conditions that  BY THE COURT: We have discussed this and I'm ashamed that you here in front of the jury are trying to bring up something that I have already discussed with you, and you already have a definite understanding. .... Q: Did you ever tell Zenobia Isaac that you did not want her to testify against you because she knew too much about you? A: No, sir. Q: Did you use drugs in the presence of Zenobia Isaac in  BY MR. RUSHING: Objection your Honor. BY THE COURT: I don't see the relevance of this. This is a case wherein the charges are those of sale of crack cocaine. The defendants are Mrs. Lucille Craft and Donald Cowart. Those are the things that are relevant in this case. Q: Did you make a remark to Zenobia Isaac that you wanted to  that you were going to take Lucille Craft down? A: No, sir. .... Q: Did you ever threaten Zenobia Isaac that if she didn't do everything you told her to do that you would set her up for a drug sale? BY MR. RUSHING: I object to relevancy your Honor. BY THE COURT: I sustain. (emphasis added) The defendant argues that he was not given the wide latitude on cross-examination to which he is entitled under MRE 611(b) and MRE 616 when impeaching through bias of a witness. However, as the record indicates, he was given wide latitude in his questions and was specifically permitted to question Troy about any possible favorable treatment from the police. Therefore, the defendants' argument is contrary to the record and thus without merit. The trial court's ruling is affirmed as there was no abuse of discretion. The defendants also alleged that they were denied their constitutional right to confront the witness who was testifying against them, citing Myers v. State, 296 So.2d 695, 700 (Miss. 1974). Myers simply says that a defendant is entitled to fully cross-examine the witness on every material point relating to the issue to be determined that would have a bearing on the credibility of the witness and the weight and worth of his testimony. Id. at 700. The defendants would have this Court believe that Myers allows any questions regardless of any evidentiary barriers that also may be applicable. This argument is without merit.