Opinion ID: 2629770
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cornelio's second forgery conviction

Text: Second, Cordeiro asserts that the circuit court erred in sustaining the prosecution's objection to a question posed to Cornelio by defense counsel during recross-examination. Cordeiro's defense counsel asked Cornelio if he had been convicted of two counts of forgery, rather than one, as he had previously testified in the course of direct examination, the prosecution objected to the question as beyond the scope of redirect, and the circuit court sustained the objection. Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. HRE Rule 611(b) (1993); see also State v. Napulou, 85 Hawai`i 49, 57, 936 P.2d 1297, 1305 (App.1997). Similarly, recross-examination should be limited to the scope of redirect examination, see, e.g., State v. Jones, 47 P.3d 783 (Kan.2002) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining prosecution's objection to recross-examination as beyond the scope of redirect); Brumelow v. State, 239 Ga.App. 119, 520 S.E.2d 776, 782 (1999) (finding no abuse of discretion in prohibiting counsel from questioning witness on recross-examination regarding matter beyond the scope of redirect examination), or matters affecting the credibility of the witness, see, e.g., Simmons v. State, 552 So.2d 268, 269 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1989) (A witness's credibility is `always a proper subject of cross-examination.'.... This principle holds true in the context of recross-examination. (Citation omitted.)). In the present matter, Cornelio testified on direct examination that he had been convicted of a theft and a forgery charge, but the subject was not covered during redirect examination. Consequently, because the prosecution did not address the subject of an alleged second forgery conviction on redirect, when Cordeiro's defense counsel raised the subject on recross-examination, it was, technically, beyond the scope of redirect, and the circuit court did not err in sustaining the prosecution's objection on this basis. While it is true that the credibility of a witness is always relevant, Cordeiro's defense counsel failed to argue as much when the circuit court ruled that the question was beyond the scope of redirect. [A] ruling admitting or excluding evidence cannot be assigned as error unless ... the court is clearly apprised of the nature of the claimed error and of the corrective action sought. Commentary to HRE Rule 103(a). [28] Thus, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in sustaining the prosecution's objection. Assuming arguendo, however, that the circuit court did err, the error was harmless. Defense counsel was able to impeach Cornelio's credibility with a plethora of convictions, including one forgery conviction. And, in fact, defense counsel was clearly successful in undermining Cornelio's credibility, because Cordeiro was acquitted of the attempted first degree murder charge in the Cornelio case. Cordeiro's only argument is that, while the jury may not have believed Cornelio's testimony regarding Cordeiro's attempt to hire him to kill Freitas, it may have believed Cornelio's testimony regarding what Cordeiro had told him about the Blaisdell case. Cordeiro does not, however, cite the specific testimony pertaining to the Blaisdell case that the jury might have believed, how the testimony might have contributed to his conviction, or why Cordeiro's impeachment of Cornelio with a second forgery conviction might have changed the jury's assessment of Cornelio's credibility. Cornelio's only testimony regarding the Blaisdell case that we can find was that Cordeiro had told him that Freitas was the principal witness for the prosecution in his murder trial. Even if the jury believed the foregoing testimony, we fail to discern how it could have prejudiced Cordeiro.