Opinion ID: 2273992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Third Adverse RulingOutside the Scope of Cross Examination

Text: The third adverse ruling occurred when the circuit court allowed the prosecutor on redirect to inquire as to the value of the property taken in the burglary, despite the fact that evidence concerning the value had not been introduced during the direct examination or the cross-examination. Defense counsel objected, arguing the question was outside the scope of his cross-examination and should not be allowed. The circuit court agreed that the question was technically outside the scope of the cross-examination, but allowed it in the interest of expediency, noting that the State could always recall the witness. This court has recognized that the scope and extent of redirect examination lie within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge. Easter v. State, 306 Ark. 452, 815 S.W.2d 924 (1991). In this matter, the court has recognized that the court's discretion is very liberal. Id. A judge may permit a party to bring out on redirect examination some matter that is relevant to that party's case or defense and that through oversight he or she has failed to elicit on direct. Id. Moreover, Ark.Code Ann. § 16-43-703(Repl.1999) gives the trial court discretion to allow the reexamination of a witness and Ark. R. Evid. 611(a) imposes a duty on trial courts to exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to . . . avoid needless consumption of time. Ark. R. Evid. 611(a)(2004). The Easter case is instructive on this point. In Easter , the prosecutor, during his direct examination of a rape victim, failed to elicit testimony from the victim that the defendant pulled her pants down before he forced her into the bedroom. While this issue was not touched upon during cross examination, the trial court allowed the prosecutor to go back to the issue and elicit the relevant information during redirect. In this case, though the prosecutor did not address the value of the stolen property on direct examination, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing reexamination on this point during redirect because the value of the goods was relevant to the State's case. Easter v. State, supra .