Court Opinion

ID: 9544622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:58:02.543881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:19.685500
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Judge
(dissenting).
I regret that I am unable to concur with the majority of the Court. In my opinion the issues raised on the appeal and not discussed by the majority are not sufficient to warrant a reversal and I agree with the absence of discussion of these points.
. The majority discuss the “proof of bias on cross-examination” and conclude that there was reversible error in this area of the trial. I cannot agree. On oral argument the appellant conceded that he had one specific event in mind, an event which occurred eighteen months before the occurrence which is before us on appeal. This time interval cannot be ascertained from the tendered questions or from the reporter’s transcript. For aught that appeared to the trial judge, there was no time limitation and no way of determining the time interval involved and being but one, not specifically identified in the mind of counsel, the proposed questions were in the nature of cross-examination by innuendo. There was no suggestion that the subject matter of the proposed cross-examination related to the defendant, but only that it related to the officer’s responsibility in connection with another family fight. This type of law officer duty presents a most complex, challenging and unreasoning situation. If the officer fails to remove the offending party and serious bodily harm later occurs, a great hue and cry arises urging a failure of the law to protect the citizenry. If no crime has actually taken place in the presence of.the officer and the circumstances are such that the officer cannot reasonably believe that a felony has just been committed and the officer then removes the offending party, there is often the cry of “false arrest” accompanied by resistence and the framework. for the situation which we find in the record. Often the persons who seek the officer’s protection, once the officer’s mission' has been accomplished, turn against the officer and in support of the one who now becomes “the loved one of the family circle”.
Civil suits are easily filed. Good police procedures call for'the investigation of serious incidents. The questions proposed do not concern themselves with the outcome of the civil litigation or with'- the outcome of the departmental investigation. Even if they had so concerned themselves, the subject matter would be of questionable admissibility. In my opinion, with the showing made at the oral argument before this Court, the thrust of the particular event was too remote.
In my opinion the most that can be said in favor of the position of the appellant is that the matters presented to the trial court were within an area calling for the exercise of judicial discretion and in my opinion there is no showing of an abuse of that discretion.
HOSPITAL RECORDS
I concur with the majority on the basis of the record presented to us. I do not believe the ruling to have been so prejudicial as to require a reversal. In my opinion we should proceed very' carefully in applying the business records rule'in criminal cases.
I would affirm.