Opinion ID: 2263311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The trial judge allegedly abused his discretion by limiting defense counsel's cross of Alicia.

Text: At trial defense counsel sought to attack Alicia's credibility in various ways. Defense counsel suggested that Alicia had a motive to lie because she disliked her father. Particularly, defense counsel suggested that Alicia disliked Miller because he allowed Megan Cantwell, Miller's girlfriend who mistreated Alicia, to move into his home. Miller now contends that the trial judge prevented him from asking Alicia detailed questions about his relationship with Cantwell, and that this limit on Alicia's cross-examination prevented Miller from demonstrating Alicia's bias and motive to lie, resulting in an unfair trial. Miller's argument lacks merit. When questioning Alicia about Cantwell, defense counsel asked Alicia whether her father went to Family Court to have Cantwell removed from his residence for threatening Alicia and her brother. The State objected and the trial judge sustained the objection: The Court: You can inquire whether or not she enjoyed having her there, liked her, believed she was a good mother, you can make inquiry, but this Family Court matter has no relevance at all. So you may inquire ... what you're trying to do in a roundabout way is trying to boost the credibility of your client. It has nothing to do with the potential bias or prejudice of this witness. You're trying to say, well, your client did the right thing so, therefore, the jury should like him. The trial judge's ruling simply pointed out that the fact that Miller went to Family Court to have Cantwell removed was inadmissible because it injected improper character evidence. The trial judge's ruling did not hinder Miller's ability to show that Alicia was angry at Miller for allowing Cantwell to live with them. In fact, the questions immediately following the trial judge's ruling demonstrate that Miller had an opportunity to establish that Alicia resented him as a result of his relationship with Cantwell: Q: Alicia, was there a period of time when [Cantwell] made you feel extremely uncomfortable? A: Yes. Q: And were you mad at your dad for that for a while? A. Yes. Q: And even after you dad got [Cantwell] to leave, were you still angry at your dad because of your feelings about Megan? A: No. Q: So you didn't harbor any resentment about Megan after she was gone. A: No. Q: How long were you angry with you dad while Megan was there and for that reason? A: A while, until she actually left. Clearly the testimony above indicates that the trial judge's ruling did not affect Miller's ability to show Alicia's bias. Further, as the trial judge found, the fact that Miller went to Family Court to have Cantwell removed had no relevance to Alicia's bias and was an indirect way of admitting improper character evidence. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by sustaining the State's objection.