Opinion ID: 1285642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Cross-examination of Sgt. Wilkerson regarding other suspects

Text: Appellant contends his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial judge's refusal to allow him to cross-examine Sgt. Wilkerson of the Columbia Police Department regarding other suspects who falsely confessed to these murders. At trial, appellant argued this evidence was probative to show the jury that some people boast or puff about crimes they did not do. He claimed this evidence would explain his admission to the crimes in his letters to Virgil Howard. The right to meaningful cross-examination of an adverse witness is included in the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. State v. Smith, supra ; State v. Graham, supra . Trial judges retain wide latitude, however, to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination including questions regarding matters that are only marginally relevant. State v. Aleksey, supra ; State v. Smith, 315 S.C. at 552, 446 S.E.2d at 411 ( quoting Delaware v. VanArsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)). The fact that other people may confess to crimes they did not commit has little or no relevance to appellant's guilt in this case. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow this line of questioning.