Opinion ID: 2615592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Trial Court Properly Limited the Scope of White's Cross-examination of Cabrera.

Text: The credibility of a witness may be attacked by evidence of bias, interest[,] or motive. HRE Rule 609.1. The extent of cross-examination, however, rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai`i 195, 197, 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997). []While the right of cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, `may not be unduly restricted, ... it has never been held that this right is absolutely without restriction.' [State v.] Corella, 79 Hawai`i [255,] 260, 900 P.2d [1322,] 1327 [(App. 1995)] (citations omitted). However, the trial court's discretion in exercising control and excluding evidence of a witness's bias or motive to testify falsely becomes operative only after the constitutionally required threshold level of inquiry has been afforded the defendant.... When the trial court excludes evidence tending to impeach a witness, it has not abused its discretion as long as the jury has in its possession sufficient information to appraise the biases and motivations of the witness. United States v. Easter, 66 F.3d 1018, 1022-23 (9th Cir.1995) (citations omitted), cert. denied, [516] U.S. [1150], 116 S.Ct. 1026, 134 L.Ed.2d 104 (1996). Balisbisana, 83 Hawai`i at 114, 924 P.2d at 1220. In this case, the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to allow White to cross-examine Cabrera on prior convictions or bad acts that were unrelated to the charges against White. During the course of cross-examination, White's counsel elicited the following testimony from Cabrera: (1) Cabrera was arrested for burglary in the vicinity of University Pet Center on March 15, 1995, as he hid underneath a parked truck; (2) he told police that he wanted to make a deal with the police so that he could go home; (3) in response to a detective's inquiry about why he was willing to testify against White, Cabrera answered, So I can get nothing charged against me; (4) although he initially denied being involved in the burglary of Creative Holidays, Cabrera later admitted to being White's lookout; (5) Cabrera agreed to a plea agreement with the prosecution wherein (a) he would not receive a ten-year extended term of incarceration for each of the five burglaries to which he pled guilty, (b) his mandatory minimum sentence would be reduced by six months in return for his testimony against White, and (c) the prosecution agreed to refrain from bringing four other burglary charges against Cabrera. Based on the foregoing testimony, it appears that the jury had sufficient information to gauge adequately Cabrera's credibility and to appraise his motivation to fabricate testimony against White. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of White's cross-examination of Cabrera.