Opinion ID: 2338338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-Examination on Voluntariness

Text: Norcross next argues that the trial court committed reversible error by depriving him of his constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses. Norcross's counsel was cross-examining Officer Charles Brown, one of the officers who took Norcross's statement, when the Superior Court sustained the State's objection to one question: Q. All right. And to that extent would you agree with me that police officers are not supposed to make promises to persons who are being questioned? A. That's correct, not promises about charging and this type of thing. Q. Basically not to make promises about anything because if they make a promise and that is relied on that can go to voluntariness, correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. Sir, when Mr. Norcross was being questioned and he was making comments about guarantees, would you agree that it would have been more appropriate to say, Look Adam, if you don't talk to us, fine, but if you don't want to talk to us, we are not going to say anything. A. Well, we  he asked for guarantees and we ultimately fulfilled those guarantees that we gave him about going to a separate prison. Q. That is in terms of what we discussed with the officer, but in legal principle when he is talking about guarantees wouldn't it have been better to say, Look, we are not promising you anything? Prosecutor: Objection. What is the relevance of this line of questioning? The Court: Yeah. [Defense Counsel.] Defense Counsel: Your Honor, it goes to the voluntariness. The Court: Objection is sustained. Although the court makes the initial determination whether a statement is voluntary, and thus admissible, the jury may consider any claim of involuntariness as affecting the weight of the evidence. [10] In other words, the requirement that the court make a pretrial voluntariness determination does not undercut the defendant's traditional prerogative to challenge the confession's reliability during the course of the trial. [11] Thus, a blanket exclusion of all evidence relating to the circumstances surrounding a defendant's confession deprives the defendant of his right to a fair trial. [12] Here, however, there was no deprivation of Norcross's constitutional rights. There was no blanket exclusion of relevant evidence. The trial court merely sustained an objection to one question that sought a police officer's legal opinion as to what might be a better way to conduct an interrogation. Norcross asked numerous other questions, without objection, touching on the reliability of the confession. In addition, the jury saw the entire videotaped confession. Thus, the police officers' tactics were fully revealed, giving Norcross the evidence he needed to argue that the confession should be disregarded.