Opinion ID: 6107769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Adverse Possession and Claim of Right Issues

Text: Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness about the legal doctrine of adverse possession and again abused its discretion when it excluded discussion of adverse possession from closing arguments. The propriety, scope, manner, and control of cross-examination of witnesses ... remain within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Echols , 382 S.W.3d 266 , 285 (Tenn. 2012) (citing State v. Reid , 213 S.W.3d 792 , 838 (2006) ; State v. Rice , 184 S.W.3d 646 , 670 (2006) ). This Court will not disturb the limits placed upon cross-examination by the trial court, unless the trial court has unreasonably restricted the right. Reid , 213 S.W.3d at 839 (citing State v. Dishman , 915 S.W.2d 458 , 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) ). The record belies Defendant's assertion that the trial court limited her questioning of the witness. The record shows that Defendant cross-examined a prosecution witness, real estate agent Mr. Dickens, about the elements of adverse possession in an apparent attempt to establish the affirmative defense of claim of right. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107 (1) - (2) (2014). 21 On redirect examination, the State asked Mr. Dickens, without objection from Defendant, whether adverse possession is a defense  to theft. The witness responded that, based on what he had learned, it is not. Counsel for Defendant broached the subject again on re-cross, posing questions aimed at ascertaining the basis of the witness's statement that adverse possession is not a defense to theft. The non-attorney witness responded that he had learned over the course of this case that it is not a defense. As counsel for Defendant pressed the witness to clarify his knowledge of adverse possession the prosecution objected. In ruling on the objection, the trial court stated that it was not going to allow either the defense or the prosecution to delve any farther into adverse possession. Counsel for Defendant then asked the trial court for permission to ask the witness if he knew whether adverse possession is a defense to theft. The trial judge allowed defense counsel to pose this question, and the witness responded that he did not know. Defense counsel did not seek permission to ask additional questions, nor did Defendant make an offer of proof about other questions that would have been asked but for the trial court's ruling. Tenn. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). Thus, we conclude that Defendant's assertion that she was limited in questioning the witness about adverse possession is wholly without merit. In our view, the trial court afforded Defendant great latitude by allowing any questions about adverse possession to support the affirmative defense of claim of right. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107 (1) - (2). Defendant remained in this property for only a week and adverse possession requires possession for a period of years. See Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim , 226 S.W.3d 366 , 376 (Tenn. 2007). The trial court nevertheless allowed Defendant to ask questions about adverse possession to support the claim of right defense and instructed the jury on the claim of right defense. Having heard all the evidence, the jury simply exercised its prerogative to reject this defense. Defendant's assertion that the trial court improperly limited her questioning of this witness is simply without merit. Also without merit is Defendant's assertion that the trial court erred by limiting closing argument about adverse possession. Closing arguments are not evidence. State v. Shaw , 37 S.W.3d 900 , 904 (Tenn. 2001). Furthermore, trial courts have broad discretion to control closing arguments. State v. Odom , 336 S.W.3d 541 , 559 (Tenn. 2011). Having allowed Defendant great latitude in questioning witnesses about adverse possession and instructing the jury on her claim of right defense, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing limitations on closing argument. Moreover, even assuming the trial court abused its discretion, Defendant has failed to establish, or even allege, any prejudice resulting from this limitation. State v. Rodriguez , 254 S.W.3d 361 , 371-72 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Tenn. R. App. P. 36 ). Again, the jury received an instruction on the claim of right defense and rejected it. The Defendant is not entitled to relief on this claim.