Opinion ID: 852208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation of Defense Examination of Detective

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court erred when it prohibited the defense from cross-examining the detective about the defendant's level of intoxication. The defendant argues that such questioning was relevant to the issue of the voluntariness of his police interview statements. Notwithstanding our determination that the conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for retrial, we address this issue because of the possibility that it may arise on retrial. The specific trial court ruling here challenged by the defendant occurred during the testimony of Detective Pryor, who was recalled as a witness by the State to facilitate its proffer of the videotaped interview into evidence. Preliminarily, the State asked the detective whether he had utilized a statement of rights form and read it to the defendant. The detective confirmed this and identified an exhibit as that document. When the State then offered the exhibit into evidence, the defense sought and received permission to voir dire the witness. During the voir dire questioning, the defense began to ask the detective about whether he had information before you came into that room to speak with Mr. Carr about his consumption of alcohol had you not? Tr. at 678. The State objected, stating, this goes way beyond the admission of this Exhibit. Id. The defense responded that our client was in no position to give a voluntary waiver of rights under his circumstances and I was just exploring that issue. Id. The trial court sustained the State's objection but told defense counsel, you'll be given that opportunity but [not] for this particular Exhibit at this particular time. Id. When the State subsequently offered into evidence the actual videotape and its transcription, the defense again requested to voir dire the witness on ... the voluntariness of whatever statement our client may have made due to his state of intoxication. Id. at 680. At this point the jury was excused and the defense and the State each explored the issue with the detective without restraint, after which the defense objected to the admission of the videotape evidence based upon the state of intoxication of our client and sought to renew the motion to suppress ... based primarily upon our client's Miranda rights. Id. at 684-85. After extensive further argument of counsel, the defendant's objection was overruled, the jury was seated, and the videotape was presented to the jury. At no time thereafter did the defense seek to cross-examine the detective about the defendant's state of intoxication during the custodial interview. The defense did not conduct further cross-examination of the detective nor did they recall him as a defense witness. We agree that questioning the detective about the defendant's state of intoxication during the interview generally would have been proper and permissible. The defendant's challenge, however, is to the trial court's refusal to permit voir dire examination of the detective on the issue of the admissibility of the statement of rights form. This exhibit merely identified the location of the interview, date, time, and officer's name; stated the defendant's basic Miranda rights; and contained the defendant's signature acknowledging the reading and understanding of my rights as they are stated above. Appellant's App'x at 413. The exhibit did not purport to constitute any waiver of the defendant's rights nor contain any other statement of the defendant. The existence and extent of the defendant's intoxication at the time the detective read him the statement of rights form is irrelevant to the admissibility of the form itself. The trial court did not err in sustaining the State's objection.