Opinion ID: 1105891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow terry to impeach a state's witness with an altered document.

Text: ¶ 38. The State's theory of the case against Terry was that during the time that she worked at Friedman, she wrote numerous tickets reflecting scrap metal received and corresponding payments of corporate funds to Friedman customers for such scrap. Numerous computer entries further documenting these transactions and made contemporaneously, or later on during the same day, invariably reflected pay-outs of corporate funds greatly exceeding the funds actually paid to the customers. There was proof that Terry had direct access to the corporation's computer to make the erroneous computer entries. However, Terry was not the only one who had access to the computers. Friedman, Hammers, Tim Bixler, and others had computer terminals that were on a network system. ¶ 39. Tim Bixler testified concerning the way business was conducted at Friedman. Bixler testified that most of the time Terry operated the pay window. Once the metal was weighed, a ticket was extended to the customer showing how much he would be paid. The customer was asked to sign the ticket to acknowledge that he had completed the ticket correctly, that he was getting the amount of money, and that the weights were right. The customer signed the ticket and was given a copy along with his money. The ticket number was then entered onto the computer with the payment made, producing a computerized transaction journal. ¶ 40. Bixler explained that there was no significance to any of the testimony indicating who wrote the tickets, because that is not where the problem occurred. The problem occurred when whomever entered that ticket number into the computer also entered a higher amount attributed to it. It was typical for tickets to accumulate up with anybody's handwriting on them. The problem occurred when the information from the tickets was entered into the computer. Terry, Hammer, and Bixler were in and out of the safe, as it was open and available to both cashiers when they needed to procure more money. ¶ 41. During cross-examination, defense counsel began to question Bixler about what procedure would be followed if it were discovered that a legitimate mistake had been made in the transaction journal. Bixler explained that there is no way to go back and make a change because the record is permanently written: BY BIXLER: The transaction journal is printed. There's no way to go back. As far as the computer is concerned, the record is permanently written to memory. You can't alter it. You can only go back and refer to that transaction and make another one to fix it. ¶ 42. Terry's attorney began to pursue a new line of questioning from which her third assignment of error comes. He handed Bixler a ticket and a document, which he called a transactional journal. He asked Bixler to compare the amount on the ticket and the corresponding amount in the transactional journal. The two numbers were not the same, and Bixler stated that there appeared to be an error for which he was sure there were a number of legitimate explanations. Terry's attorney then explained that the document was not a real transactional journal, but a computer-generated counterfeit. The court sustained the State's objection to the question as being argumentative. ¶ 43. Later in the same line of questioning, the court asked McIlwain what it was that he wanted Bixler to do. McIlwain responded that he wanted Bixler to acknowledge that he identified a document as being a transaction journal and just then called this the real one and didn't know the difference. McIlwain when attempting to have the document admitted into evidence stated it was made up by his secretary, and the State objected. The following exchange took place when counsel approached the bench, but on the record: MR. McILWAIN: It's a fake. He's acknowledged this. MR. PINTARD: Your Honor, the whole crux of this thing is that they said that this computer could not beI mean, everything's perfect. And we're going to show its not perfect. That's the way we're going to do it. THE COURT: I see, by having your secretary make up fake documents. MR. McILWAIN: Try tricking the witness, and he identified it as a transactional journal. THE COURT: Willard MR. DYER: Your Honor, this is a counterfeit document. THE COURT: Exactly MR. McILWAIN: That's right, exactly. THE COURT: and it will be excluded. Now, this is not television which would be the only place that I know of where a stunt like this would be pulled. MR. McILWAIN: What is wrong with having him identify something that's clearlyhe acknowledges is acouldn't be done? THE COURT: I don't have time to instruct you on that, but I'm going to tell you this, there better not be any more counterfeit exhibits shown to a witness or produced in this courtroom during this trial. Do I make myself clear? ¶ 44. Terry claims that she should have been allowed to cross-examine Bixler with this forged document as it would have constituted impeachment. Terry states that Bixler acknowledged the fake transaction journal was authentic and that would have served as impeachment of his statement that the transaction journal cannot be altered. The State responds to this by saying the record is void of any statement by Bixler that the fake transaction journal was an authentic transaction journal. ¶ 45. However, Terry contends that the court's preventing her from impeaching Bixler with the document denied the right to confrontation of the State's witness guaranteed in the State Constitution and the United States Constitution. Hubbard v. State, 437 So.2d 430, 433-34 (Miss.1983). The constitutional right of confrontation of witnesses encompasses the right to cross-examine them. Id. at 434. Terry states that this right was denied when the trial court refused to allow the witness to be questioned about a document which he stated could not be altered. Bixler stated that the original transaction journal could not be altered. Terry was attempting to introduce a counterfeit document, to prove that an altered document could have been substituted for the real one. ¶ 46. The State contends that impeachment with this forged document would have been irrelevant to her defense because it would not tend to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Miss. R. Evid. 401. The scope of cross-examination shall not be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. Miss. R. Evid. 611(b). ¶ 47. The Court holds that Terry was denied her right to cross-examine Bixler. She was limited to examining him with relevant questions on relevant matters. McIlwain's attempt to impeach Bixler with the fake produced by his own secretary was proper because defense counsel was refuting Bixler's assertion that the transactional record could not be altered. This Court finds that it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge to prevent impeachment of Bixler with the fake transaction journal.