Opinion ID: 1131067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: comments and evidentiary rulings by the trial court

Text: Defendants' final claim is that the fraud verdict was prejudicially tainted by the trial court's comments at trial and by erroneous evidentiary rulings. Defendants contend that the errors, either individually or cumulatively, require reversal and remand for a new trial. Defendants cite several instances in which the trial court allegedly made improper comments. As defendants concede, no objections were raised below. Despite the lack of objection, defendants urge us to address the propriety of the comments under a plain error standard. [57] Under that standard, an error requires reversal when it is plain, i.e., obvious to the trial court, and also harmful, i.e., affects the substantial rights of the accused. [58] We have reviewed the allegedly prejudicial comments and do not believe that any of them were egregious enough to qualify as harmful. We therefore find that the plain error standard has not been met. [59] Next, defendants point to several alleged erroneous evidentiary rulings made by the trial court during the course of the trial. We have reviewed all of the alleged evidentiary errors and find only one to be of merit. During plaintiffs' case-in-chief, the trial court prohibited defendants from cross-examining two of plaintiffs' witnesses to establish their potential bias. The court reasoned that defendants' line of questioning was beyond the scope of direct examination and prohibited it on that basis. It is well established that testimony reflecting on the bias of a witness is admissible at trial. [60] A trial court may limit witness examination to `preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation' [61] but normally cannot so rule simply because the desired line of questioning exceeds the scope of direct. As we stated in State v. Leonard : [T]he scope of cross-examination as to credibility is and must be broad if it is to fulfill its designated purpose of exposing bias and purging testimony of intended or unintended error. Full exposure of a witness' bias or prejudice is essential if a jury is to be able to fully assess the existence and extent of the witness' bias. [62] Hence, the trial court erred by refusing to allow defendants to cross-examine two of plaintiffs' witnesses for potential bias. We must therefore determine whether that error so affected defendants' substantial rights as to warrant reversal. [63] After a careful review, we conclude that the error was harmless, given the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. Although the testimony in question, if elicited, may have revealed some bias on the part of the two witnesses, such bias would not be enough to negate the substantial evidence of fraud present in this case. [64] Hence, there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings, and the error does not necessitate reversal.