Court Opinion

ID: 9858569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:28:32.87798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:51.293169
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, J.,
dissents.
APPENDIX
Appellant cross-examined a State’s witness, Juan Adame. Some of his questions, however, were objected to by the State’s attorney with the trial court sustaining the objection. The specific basis for appellant’s complaint that the trial court imper-missibly restricted his cross-examination of the State’s witness is as follows.
First, appellant directs us to the following:
“Q. Now, this pistol that you are telling us about, did you say that it was behind the seat of the pickup?
“A. The policeman said that that was where he found it.
“Q. Weren’t you there? Don’t you know where he found it?
“[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Arguing with the witness. I object to it.
“THE COURT: Sustained.
“Questions by [defense attorney] continued:
“Q. Were you there when the police found the pistol?
“A. No.
“Q. Where were you, sir?
“A. Some policeman had me in the back of the truck.”
The second alleged restriction of cross-examination occurred when defense counsel attempted to question the witness in regards to whether Lee Rodriguez was on probation:
“Q. Do you know where Lee Rodriguez lives?
“A. He is in prison.
“Q. When was he sent to prison?
“A. That same day.
“Q. Sunday?
“A. The same day.
“Q. We are talking about a Sunday, are we not?
“A. That same day, exactly, that Sunday.
“Q. Was he sent to prison because of this pistol or because he had other charges pending against him?
“[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Object on two grounds. Number one, it’s not material or relevant and, two, calls for a conclusion and speculation on his part.
“THE COURT: Sustained.
“Questions by [defense attorney] continued:
“Q. Do you know if Lee Rodriguez was out on a probation?
“THE COURT: I already sustained. Further along that line is not material.”
Third, appellant attempted to question the witness about his brother being on probation at the time of the killing:
“Q. Do you know if your brother Pete owned a .45 Commando semi-automatic pistol?
“A. I never knew him to have any weapon.
*802“Q. Was your brother Pete on probation at the time that he was killed?
“[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Object to that. It’s an improper form of question.
“THE COURT: That’s sustained.”
Fourth, appellant also complains he was unduly restricted when he attempted to question the witness about his position to see the shooting:
“Q. Now, this is a garage door; is that correct?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Was this door opened or closed?
“A. Open.
“Q. Did you tell her that you had gone over to the standard door to look out or to the garage door?
“A. The small door.
“Q. Why didn’t you go to the garage door?
“[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Object to that, why didn’t he go to the garage door.
“THE COURT: Sustained.”
Finally, appellant asserts error occurred when he attempted to question the witness concerning his son’s arrest on the night of the shooting:
“Q. How old is your son?
“A. Seventeen years.
“Q. When you were stopped by the police was he released by the police or taken in with you?
“[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Object. That’s not material.
“THE COURT: Sustained. That has nothing to do with it.”