Opinion ID: 1903009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Moore's Inconsistent Grand Jury Testimony

Text: Appellant's final argument stemming from the cross-examination of Moore is that the trial court erred in cutting short defense counsel's questioning regarding inconsistencies between Moore's trial and grand jury testimony. In her grand jury testimony, Moore had claimed that she was present at a fight between appellant and Murray, but at trial, she testified that she had not been at the fight. After defense counsel impeached Moore with her grand jury testimony, Moore explained that there were two fights, only one of which she had witnessed. All the other witnesses who testified about the fight had said that there was only one fight between appellant and decedent. Appellant asserts counsel should have been permitted to further cross-examine Moore as to the number of fights. Whether there had been one or two fights did not go directly to the issue of appellant's guilt, but was a means of impeaching Moore's trial testimony that appellant had confessed to the shooting. Defense counsel was allowed to point out Moore's inconsistent grand jury testimony concerning the number of fights, and every other witness had testified, contrary to Moore, that there was only one fight between appellant and Murray. [7] Although appellant claims that the line of questioning about the number of fights was necessary to undermine Moore's credibility as a witness, [8] she had already been thoroughly impeached on this point. Therefore, because [t]rial judges retain a wide latitude... to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about... confusion of the issues or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defense counsel's questioning of Moore regarding the number of fights between appellant and decedent.