Opinion ID: 1286632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court's Ruling Restricting Cross-Examination of State's Witness for Bias

Text: Reutter's fourth argument is that the trial court unduly restricted his cross-examination of prosecution witness Rich Cole. Specifically, Reutter claims that he was not allowed to adequately examine Cole for bias. At the time his testimony was offered, Cole was serving two consecutive ten-year sentences in the South Dakota State Penitentiary on his conviction on two counts of distribution of cocaine. Cole entered his pleas of guilty in exchange for the state's agreement not to prosecute him as a habitual offender. During opening argument Reutter's counsel stated that the evidence would show that Trygstad and Cole had obtained cocaine from sources other than Reutter, including one Frank Island. Island was generally characterized by Reutter's counsel as a major drug supplier in South Dakota. Cole was questioned extensively on cross-examination about both his professional and social relationship with Island including the extent to which drugs were involved in these relationships. In an effort to establish that Cole was fearful of incriminating Island, Reutter's counsel asked Cole whether he had ever made a statement to representatives of the state in a matter unrelated to this criminal action that Frank Island was cold blooded. The trial court sustained the state's objection on the ground that relevancy and materiality had not been established. Reutter argues that this ruling constitutes reversible error. We disagree. The scope and extent of cross-examination is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Wounded Head, 305 N.W.2d 677, 680 (S.D. 1981). We will overturn the trial court's decision only upon a showing that this discretion has been abused. State v. Brown, 285 N.W.2d 843, 845 (S.D.1979). We have examined in detail Cole's testimony and find that Reutter was afforded considerable latitude in examining Cole with respect to his relationship with Island. Furthermore, Cole's testimony was not offered by the state as direct evidence of Reutter's involvement in the conspiracy. Rather, Cole testified that his sole source of cocaine was Trygstad; it was Trygstad's testimony that directly implicated Reutter. Cole was thus not a crucial witness in the state's case against Reutter. We are therefore satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by its ruling. We note with interest that although Reutter argues that establishing Island's connection with Trygstad and Cole was central to his defense, he did not call Island as a witness although he had subpoenaed him.