Opinion ID: 1689158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court Improperly Restricted Cross-Examination of a Key Witness

Text: Defendant plainly asserted as an assignment of error that: The trial court improperly restricted the cross-examination of key prosecution witness Mark McCauley as to prior arrests, deals or promises, which may have unduly influenced the witness' testimony and established bias and interests on the part of the witness in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine his accusers. The majority, however, does not discuss this assignment, finding that the court of appeal satisfactorily addressed the issue. In my view, the defendant has demonstrated that his right to cross examine was restricted and that such action constitutes reversible error. The record reveals that during the cross-examination of Mark McCauley the defense counsel made a motion, outside of the presence of the jury, that he be permitted to question McCauley concerning his prior arrests and pending charges, in order to show bias. After hearing the arguments, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding that any questioning pertaining to Mark McCauley's prior arrests was irrelevant and inadmissible. The court of appeal agreed, finding that La. C.E. art. 609.1 limits impeachment of witnesses to convictions and not arrests or pending charges. However, the possibility that the State may have leverage over a witness due to the witness's pending criminal charges... is a valid and permissible area of cross-examination. State v. Rankin, 465 So.2d 679, 681 (La.1985). It is also well-settled that a witness['s] hope or knowledge that he will receive leniency from the state is highly relevant to establish bias or interest ( State v. Brady, 381 So.2d 819, 821-22 (La.1980)), and that a witness's bias or interest may arise from arrests or pending criminal charges, or the prospect of prosecution, even when he has made no agreements with the state regarding his conduct. State v. Vale, 95-1230 p. 4 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 1070, 1072. During the defendant's motion for permission to question McCauley about prior arrests and pending charges, the assistant district attorney stated that Mark McCauley had been arrested just ten months prior to defendant's trial. That arrest was in connection with McCauley's allegedly having issued a worthless check. Furthermore, the district attorney conceded that McCauley had not been charged with that crime and that it was pending. Therefore, the defendant had a right to cross-examine McCauley regarding the worthless check charge and the consequential possibility of prosecution of this witness by the State to show bias. Because the defendant was precluded from asking such questions, his right to cross-examination pursuant to U.S. Const. Amend. 6, La. Const. art. I, § 16, and La.Rev.Stat. 15:273 was impermissibly restricted. In addition, that constitutional violation was not harmless error.