Opinion ID: 2060701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Zecca's Cross-Examination

Text: On cross-examination, Zecca stated that he and Williamson did not discuss what happened in the motel room until roughly one hour after they had left the scene. Then, Zecca said, it came out. Williamson's counsel asked: What came out? The State objected at this point and argued that the question was beyond the scope of direct examination. The State reminded the court that it had withdrawn its question on direct and had chosen not to inquire as to what Williamson told Zecca about what happened in the motel room. Williamson argued the withdrawal of the question should not prevent the court from finding that the State had raised the issue on direct. In the alternative, Williamson argued that the question was asked to explore Zecca's credibility. The court did not agree that the issue was raised on direct, and it sustained the State's objection stating: If you want to call him as your witness and you can do whatever you want to do. If he didn't go into it on direct then you have got to call him as your witness to get it in, that's cross-examination. You cannot do a direct in the State's case-in-chief.... You want to call him.