Opinion ID: 1308443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Scope of Cross-Examination of Bunch.

Text: Bunch contends that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to cross-examine him excessively concerning his contact with certain prostitutes the day before [Thomas's] death. Bunch argues that the testimony brought out on cross-examination was not sufficiently related in time and subject matter to [Thomas's] death ... to render [the] testimony ... relevant. Bunch concedes, as he should, that his own testimony on direct examination opened the door to inquiry into this subject area. The permissible scope of cross-examination on the subject became, therefore, a matter for the exercise of discretion by the trial court; we will not interfere with the court's action `unless [its] discretion has been plainly abused.' Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475, 485, 271 S.E.2d 419, 425 (1980), quoting from Worrell v. Kinnear Co., 103 Va. 719, 724, 49 S.E. 988, 990 (1905). We find no abuse of discretion here.