Court Opinion

ID: 9683550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:31:14.479794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.717587
License: Public Domain

SPAIN, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the Majority Opinion except for so much as affirms the Court of Appeals’ finding of reversible error because the trial court sustained an objection to cross-examination of a witness regarding his misdemeanor probation.
While I agree that defense counsel has a right to cross-examine a prosecution witness concerning possible bias, I know of no case holding that this would include asking a witness whether he had been convicted of a specific crime. Here the witness was asked if he weren’t on probation “for making obscene phone calls.” If the purpose of the question was really to focus on the probationary status, it clearly went too far in attempting to also prejudice the jury against the witness because of his particular offense. The trial court was correct in sustaining an objection thereto and admonishing the jury. Of course, this kind of admonition is like trying to “unring a bell” at best, however, and consequently the defense had its way after all. This being so, I fail to see how the Majority can hold that the ruling of the trial court constituted reversible error of constitutional magnitude. I find it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and, accordingly, would affirm the judgment of conviction.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.