Opinion ID: 1934851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: restricted cross-examination

Text: With reference to this issue, defendant contends he was deprived of a fair trial by the undue restriction and limitation of his cross-examination of Myrtle Poor Bear by the following occurrence: Q (By Mr. Connolly) Do you remember Agent Price and the other agent of the F.B.I. telling you that they were going to have to reveal your cover because they needed your testimony over here desperately? Isn't that the situation that Agent Price told you? A I don't remember. Q You've been working for them since November and you asked that your cover not be revealed, isn't that true? MR. KLAUCK: Your Honor, I'd object to any questions relating to any undercover efforts. MR. CONNOLLY: I wasn't MR. KLAUCK: It's improper. MR. CONNOLLY: I wasn't getting to what she was doing under cover. It's the fact of whether she was under cover or not. MR. KLAUCK: That's highly improper, Your Honor, whether she's working as an informant for any law enforcement agency. THE COURT: Objection sustained. The question objected to was confusingly dual in nature and assumed facts not in existence. As no reason for the ruling was given it could be justified on review as a correct result for a wrong reason. It is not necessary, however, as the trial court did not, in fact, restrict or limit defendant's further cross-examination of the witness as to her status as an informer for the F.B.I. Defendant's counsel did not believe himself restricted or limited in this regard as his next question to the witness was on the same subject: (By Mr. Connolly:) Q In December when you talked to the agents, you were working with them, were you not? A I don't know. The state made no objection to the question and there was no admonition or indication by the court the question was improper. Further inquiry on the subject was apparently voluntarily abandoned by defendant.