Opinion ID: 1660802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal of Permission to Cross-examine and Impeach Lewis as a Witness

Text: Lewis was endorsed as a witness for the state, but the state did not call him. The defendant then called Lewis. Before interrogation of the witness, the transcript here shows the following: MR. REYNOLDS (attorney for defendant): Your Honor, this witness, Tommy Lewis, is a witness that was endorsed by the state and is one who I thought would be called up by the state and they did not call him, so I call him myself and because it is my belief he will be hostile to me, I intend to cross examine him, and I realize, Ted, that I will not impeach the witness, but that I will cross examine him. THE COURT: The Court will grant you the privilege of cross examining him at such time as you feel his answers are hostile to you, without your making further record, but of course, as I understand the law, I understand you agree you won't try to impeach him, you understand that? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. Lewis then testified, in response to defendant's counsel's interrogation, that the agents had proposed the plan whereby a purchase of marihuana would be made by Lewis from Burrow and that Lewis would be arrested and jailed with Burrow to find out where the girl was and the agents would be able to make a bust of Donnie. After such statement, defense counsel asked: Q. Okay. So that your testimony is that you did not make the statement and you did not devise the plan to make this arrest and then subsequent thereto you would be placed in jail with Donald Burrow? MR. STRECKER: Now, Your Honor, I object to that as leading. THE COURT: Objection sustained. Defense counsel addressed no remark to the court following the ruling, but proceeded to examine the witness in detail concerning the plan and the agents' part in it. Some time later the following occurred in the course of defense counsel's interrogation: Q. So that the only way that your part of the plan to locate your cousin, the only way you could succeed was that the arrest would be made, you would be placed in jail and then, there at the jail you would have opportunity to talk with Donald Burrow and learn the location of your cousin? MR. STRECKER: Your Honor, I object to that as leading. THE COURT: Objection sustained. Again, following the trial court's ruling, no request was addressed to the court and the interrogation continued. On this state of the record, there simply is no basis for a claim of error based on the trial court's refusal to permit the cross-examination or impeachment of the witness. The trial court correctly ruled that cross-examination of the witness would be permitted if the witness was in fact hostile. When objection was made to two questions on the grounds that they were leading and sustained by the court, defense counsel did nothing to advise the court that he believed the hostility of the witness required that he be permitted to interrogate him as if on cross-examination. In such circumstances, the ruling of the trial court cannot be held error. As for impeachment, defense counsel at the outset stated that he would not impeach the witness and at no time was there any offer of what, if any, evidence might have been available for impeachment purposes. Again, the trial court's ruling on this question cannot be held error.