Opinion ID: 1235199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: limiting the examination

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by limiting his examination of two witnesses. His complaints go to Detective Cox and the photo lineup he showed to Bryan Slater, the victim in the Fox Photo store robbery. He also complains that he was not permitted to examine Bryan Slater concerning the description of the robber who accompanied Eddie Baxter in the Fox Photo store robbery, nor was he permitted to question Slater extensively enough about the photo lineup Detective Cox showed Slater. The State initially charged both Eddie Baxter and Victor Vaughn with robbery of the Fox Photo store. Bryan Slater, who was working at Fox Photo, identified Eddie Baxter from a photo lineup as one of the men who robbed him. It appears that the State took the position at the preliminary hearing that both robberies were committed by two men, with the evidence suggesting that Eddie Baxter was involved in both incidents, and, therefore, if Victor Vaughn committed the second robbery, he also committed the Fox Photo robbery. The trial judge at the preliminary hearing did not bind Victor Vaughn over for trial on the Fox Photo robbery charge and dismissed that count. At some time after the preliminary hearing, defense counsel talked to Bryan Slater and learned for the first time that Slater was unable to pick Eddie Baxter out of the initial photo lineup until Detective Cox suggested which picture he should identify. The trial court ruled the evidence concerning the Fox Photo robbery was totally inadmissible and refused to permit any testimony concerning that robbery but did permit Bryan Slater to testify that Detective Cox had impermissibly suggested who he should pick out of a photo lineup. Slater was not allowed to testify that the photo lineup involved Eddie Baxter or the time, date, or place of the Fox Photo robbery. Bryan Slater was permitted to testify as follows: Q. (By Ms. Asher [counsel for defendant]) Bryan, were you shown a photographic line-up by a Detective Cox approximately ten years ago? A. Yes I was. Q. And do you remember how many photographs were in that photographic line-up? A. There was eight or ten photographs in the line-up. Q. Okay. And was there a particular person in that line-up that you picked out? A. Um, not at first but, yeah, I did eventually pick somebody. Q. Could you tell us what you did when you looked at the photographic line-up? A. Well, I looked at the photographs for quite some time, about five minutes, and then, um, I told Detective Cox that I couldn't pick anyone from the line-up. That I didn't think that there was a person was in the line-up and then.... THE COURT: Counsel, let's keep our questions direct for a simple response. Let's avoid an opportunity for a narrative response that might bring information that we don't want before the jury. Q. (By Ms. Asher) Okay. What did Detective Cox do after you told him you couldn't pick anybody out of the line-up? A. He pointed to one of the pictures and said, `Are you sure it's not this person? Are you sure it's not this guy? Might it be this guy right here? Are you sure it's not this one?' You know, like that, several times. Q. Okay. Did he do anything else? Did he show you anything else? A. Well, then I eventually said, yeah, yeah I guess that is the person and then he pulled that photograph away from the line-up and set it in front of me and then he pulled another photograph from the line-up and set them side by side and he said both these photographs are of the same person and I looked at them and they were. Q. Okay. And did he tell you anything about Mr. Baxter after that? MS. LEWIS [counsel for State]: Well, Judge, I object. THE COURT: Counsel, we're not discussing Mr. Baxter, are we? Let's talk about the implication and what Detective Cox did only. Let's not inject names; all right? Q. (By Ms. Asher) Did he do anything else in regards to the line-up that you remember, Bryan? A. Um, he pointed out the fact that there was two pictures of the same person. The defendant argues that the Bryan Slater and Angie Surdez/Janet Schrunk robberies were committed by the same two men, and therefore he should have been permitted to question Bryan Slater and Detective Cox about details concerning the Fox Photo robbery. Defendant's theory is that his proffered examination of Bryan Slater and his cross-examination of Detective Cox would have shown that Slater's description of the man who accompanied Eddie Baxter during his robbery coincided with Angie Surdez' description of the man who entered the flower shop while she was being robbed, but that neither description fit the defendant. The defendant contends this fits with his theory that Jay Brahm, and not the defendant, committed the robberies with Eddie Baxter. The defendant claims that limiting his examination of Detective Cox and Bryan Slater violated his constitutional rights. The admission of evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See State v. Baker, 219 Kan. 854, Syl. ¶ 3, 549 P.2d 911 (1976); Herbstreith v. de Bakker, 249 Kan. 67, Syl. ¶ 11, 815 P.2d 102 (1991); State v. Pearson, 234 Kan. 906, 923-924, 678 P.2d 605 (1984). The scope of both direct and cross-examination is subject to reasonable control by the trial court. Herbstreith, 249 Kan. 67, Syl. ¶ 11; Pearson, 234 Kan. at 923-24. The primary test of admissibility of evidence is its relevancy to the issue in question. Relevancy is more a matter of logic and experience than of law. Evidence is relevant if it renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence, or if it has any tendency in reason to prove any material fact. To be relevant, evidence of collateral facts must be confined to the issues, but need not bear directly on them. There must be some natural, necessary or logical connection between such evidence and the inference or result it seeks to establish. Baker, 219 Kan. 854, Syl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 4. The evidence proffered by defendant bears a relation to his theory that someone else committed the robbery. The trial court erred in refusing to permit the defendant's proffered testimony of Detective Cox and Bryan Slater. When the state relies on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence that someone other than the defendant committed the crime charged is irrelevant in the absence of other evidence to connect such third person with the crime. State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, Syl. ¶ 3, 505 P.2d 1110 (1973); accord State v. Brown, 230 Kan. 499, 499-500, 638 P.2d 912 (1982). Here, a victim positively identified the defendant in a photo array within seven months of the incident and again at trial. The State relied on direct, rather than circumstantial, evidence to connect the defendant to the crime. However, Baxter's testimony would have been evidence connecting a third party to the crime. Therefore, the proffered evidence concerning the description given by Bryan Slater of the man accompanying Eddie Baxter in the Fox Photo robbery is relevant. The trial court erred in excluding it.