Opinion ID: 2457072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Penalty Phase Cross-Examination of Defendant

Text: Mr. Knese testified briefly at his penalty phase hearing, after which the State extensively cross-examined him, including asking him about prior bad acts, acts which included a past incident in which he allegedly choked his wife, his drug use, gambling, and incidents where he drove while intoxicated. Mr. Knese contends this line of questioning exceeded the scope of the direct examination and that the discussion of prior bad acts was impermissibly prejudicial. We examine for plain error only. [27] The subject matter of the State's cross-examination is generally limited to that which is broached in the examination in chief. [28] However, cross-examination need not be confined to a categorical review of the matters stated in direct examination, but may cover any matter within the fair purview of the direct examination. [29] Furthermore, a counsel's failure to object to cross-examination that is outside the scope of direct examination opens the door for the particular line of questioning in the cross-examination. [30] The scope of cross-examination ... is a matter primarily within the trial court's discretion, with the trial court's ruling not to be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. [31] The trial court also has discretion during the penalty phase of trial to allow the introduction of any evidence that may assist the jury in determining the appropriate penalty, especially in cases involving the death penalty. [32] The subjects raised by the prosecution were relevant to Mr. Knese's character and, therefore, relevant to a juror's assessment of the proper penalty. [33] Because these questions related to questions of Mr. Knese's character properly at issue in the penalty phase of the hearing, the fact that much of this matter may have been outside the scope of the direct examination or related to prior bad acts of Mr. Knese was not so prejudicial as to rise to the level of manifest injustice. The trial court did not err in choosing not to sua sponte disallow these lines of questioning.