Opinion ID: 1842460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restriction on Defense Cross-Examination as to Bias

Text: Arbelaez also argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the trial court's decision to cut off a line of questioning relating to the bias of prosecution witness Pedro Salazar. During the cross-examination of Salazar by counsel, the following exchange took place: DEFENSE: Where is your father? SALAZAR: In Colombia. DEFENSE: Why is he in Colombia? STATE: Objection. There is no relevance. COURT: Sustained.... Next question? DEFENSE: Sir, when was the last time you answer [sic] your father? STATE: Objection to the question. DEFENSE: May we approach? COURT: Yes. STATE: Go ahead. DEFENSE: His father is a fugitive from a federal charge. My understanding is that this man is on probation for a money laundering charge. My understanding is that  STATE: Which man? DEFENSE: This man over here. There is only one man on the stand here. That is it. STATE: I'm asking him to ask proper impeachment questions. Counsel knows what the question is. Let him ask it in the appropriate way. COURT: Please. Why is this relevant, first? DEFENSE: Judge, this man has been led by the State to answer specific questions in a specific manner, almost like a puppet. When they pull him he say [sic] the right words. He is a fugitive from justice, and that is his father. STATE: The jury can hear him better than I can right now. COURT: The objection is sustained. Although Arbelaez claims that the trial court prevented him from eliciting the fact that the witness, Salazar, was on probation for a money laundering charge, the transcript reveals that the State objected to a line of questioning about the witness's father being a fugitive. Counsel did allude, at sidebar, to the witness being on probation for a money laundering charge, but the questions to which the State objected were not probative of that fact. Because counsel never asked the witness about his being on probation for a money laundering charge, and because the State never objected to such a line of questioning, no factual basis existed to argue that it was reversible error to restrict questioning about the witness's probationary status. Nor could appellate counsel have argued that it was reversible error for the trial court to restrict questioning related to the witness's father's fugitive status. See Smith v. State, 194 So.2d 310, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (There is no precedent for this novel approach that counsel may attempt to impeach a witness by showing that close relatives of the witness have a criminal record.). Arbelaez's appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise an issue that was wholly lacking in factual support.