Opinion ID: 2317148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-Examination Properly Limited

Text: Hull's first argument on appeal is that the trial judge improperly limited his cross-examination of Montie Hayman, a witness to the initial fight between Hull and Batson. According to Hull, inquiry into Hayman's prior drug convictions was crucial to demonstrate that Hayman and Batson had a motive to fabricate their testimony. The trial judge denied Hull's request to admit into evidence Hayman's prior misdemeanor drug convictions because they were not admissible under the Delaware Rules of Evidence. A trial judge has broad discretion in determining the relevance of peripheral or background evidence concerning a witness. [1] Hull requested more information about Hayman's prior criminal background than the State had been able to provide. The trial judge allowed defense counsel the opportunity to question Hayman outside the presence of the jury to determine the disposition of his drug dealing and assault charges. Hayman admitted having only two misdemeanor convictions involving drug possession. The trial judge refused to allow Hull to introduce this evidence under Delaware Rules of Evidence 609(a), which provides: (a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted but only if the crime (1) constituted a felony under the law under which the witness was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. [2] On appeal, Hull argues that the evidence of Hayman's drug conviction was relevant because drug dealing is a dangerous business which carries the potential of armed conflict as a by-product of commercial enterprise. [3] Hull wanted to challenge Batson's testimony that it was Hull who had chased Batson in a white Jeep Cherokee and fired shots at him. Hull wanted to argue that, since Batson was driving Hayman's truck, Batson was mistaken for Hayman by an unknown, drug-related, third-party shooter who intended to injure Hayman. Under Delaware Rules of Evidence 611, cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The trial judge may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. Hayman did not testify about his prior drug possession or about drugs at all during his direct examination. Nor was his drug conviction admissible for impeachment purposes. Hayman's prior drug convictions were not admissible under Delaware Rules of Evidence 609(a) to impeach Hayman's credibility because they were neither felonies nor crimes of dishonesty. [4] Nor were they admissible as evidence of bias. [5] The fact that Hayman had prior misdemeanor drug convictions itself carries no implication that there was any connivance or collusion between Batson and Hayman to fabricate their testimony. [6] The record reflects that Hull wanted to discredit Batson's eyewitness identification indirectly through Hayman. The use of Hayman's prior drug convictions to impeach the credibility of another witness (Batson) did not fall within the ambit of any evidentiary rule. [7] Batson had known the defendant for six or seven years because the two frequented the same racetrack. As a result, the likelihood of Batson misidentifying Hull as the driver of the white Jeep Cherokee was remote. Hayman's prior misdemeanor convictions had no evidentiary significance under the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the trial judge's refusal to admit those convictions into evidence did not violate Hull's confrontation clause rights. [8]