Opinion ID: 2275443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Witness Bias

Text: Halford next contends that the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine State's witness, Patricia Payne, regarding possible bias. He asserts that he put on the record the fact that the witness's husband was in jail and that her brother was wanted on a warrant. He also wanted to ask her if she was hiding her brother, but the trial court denied this. He further states in his brief that he made a record of the facts he wished to elicit from Ms. Payne. It was error, he maintains, to exclude this relevant evidence of bias. This court has held, and our Rules of Evidence require, that when challenging the exclusion of testimony, an appellant must make a proffer of the excluded evidence at trial so that this court can review the decision, unless the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context. See, e.g., Leaks v. State, 339 Ark. 348, 5 S.W.3d 448 (1999) (citations omitted); Arkansas Rules of Evidence 103(a)(2). At trial, defense counsel engaged in the following questioning of the witness during cross-examination, which was then halted by the State's objection: DEFENSE COUNSEL: Who is Rick or Ricky Payne? PAYNE: He is my husband. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Where was he at the time [in May of 1998 when Detective Steven Scott was interviewing you]? PAYNE: He was incarcerated. PROSECUTOR: I am going to object to relevance. I don't know what relevance this has to this matter. THE COURT: Why don't you both step forward. (Bench conference). THE COURT: What is the relevance? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, her husband was in jail, her brother had outstanding warrants for him. I am going to ask her if it isn't true that she was hiding her brother out to keep her brother from getting arrested and ask her if that had an influence on her statement to Detective Snell. The trial court denied the line of questioning but did permit counsel to delve into whether any promises or assurances had been made by the State in exchange for her testimony. Counsel never pursued this line of inquiry. What is critical to our determination of this point is that defense counsel failed to go forward and make any proffer of what Ms. Payne's testimony would have been. He only advised the trial court that he wanted to pose certain questions to her. Hence, we can only speculate about Ms. Payne's answers relating to bias and any resulting prejudice. Leaks v. State, supra . Accordingly, this point is not preserved for our review.