Opinion ID: 2333091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Was there error in the cross-examination of Harry Wise as to the accuracy of his confession?

Text: Counsel for Harry Wise urges prejudicial error was committed when the prosecutor was allowed to ask Harry Wise on cross-examination whether there were any errors or mistakes in his confession. It is claimed Harry was put on the stand for the sole purpose and under a stipulation that he would testify only as to the credibility and voluntariness of his confession. The prosecutor's cross-examination, it is said, went beyond those limits and constituted an inquiry into the contents of the confession itself. At the time the questions were asked, Harry's two confessions had already been received in evidence. The objection is plainly without merit. On his direct examination, Harry had testified he had absolutely no recollection of having given or signed the confession documents and that at the time he purportedly did so he was suffering from symptoms of withdrawal from narcotics. In other words, it was contended the confession was not entitled to credibility as the author was insensible at the time. Even though the inquiry was to be limited to the credibility of the confession, certainly the weight it was to be given depended, to some extent at least, on whether it was truthful. That was the purpose of the questions submitted. The answers speak for themselves. Their relationship to the inquiry undertaken is patent. They were within the scope of the restriction and were therefore proper and pertinent.