Opinion ID: 1285642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Kendrick Davis's impeachment with racial slur

Text: As impeachment evidence, appellant proffered the testimony of Kendrick Davis's co-worker, Stanley Davis, who would have testified that Kendrick Davis stated after identifying appellant in the photo line-up: Yes, I picked out the individual, but you know how it is, all these niggers look alike. The trial judge ruled he would not allow the witness to use the word niggers but permitted him to answer affirmatively defense counsel's question whether Kendrick Davis had said all blacks look alike. Kendrick Davis was asked during cross-examination whether he had made this statement and he denied it. Appellant contends the trial judge's refusal to allow him to cross-examine Kendrick Davis with the statement using the word niggers violated appellant's confrontation rights. We disagree. 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, 315 S.C. 547, 446 S.E.2d 411 (1994); State v. Graham, 314 S.C. 383, 444 S.E.2d 525 (1994). The trial judge retains wide latitude, however, to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination that is 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)). In this case, the defense emphasized in closing argument that it was not challenging Kendrick Davis's honesty but only the accuracy of his memory. Appellant was permitted to challenge the accuracy of Davis's memory by impeaching him with the statement all blacks look alike. Nothing would have been added by allowing the use of the inflammatory word niggers. Since this evidence was irrelevant to impeach Davis's memory, there was no Confrontation Clause violation in its exclusion.