Court Opinion

ID: 9560842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:57:29.470859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:14.866011
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. The Confrontation Clause requires an accused to be afforded the right to cross examine the State’s witnesses regarding bias. Such evidence is “always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). Therefore, I agree with the majority that failure of the trial court to allow such evidence constitutes error.
However, unlike the Court, I believe the error warrant’s reversal. I do agree that we must apply the standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). There, *391the Supreme Court stated that before considering Confrontation Clause errors “harmless,” the reviewing Court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the appellant’s conviction. Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828. In the case before us, the testimony of Harold Mann was of paramount importance to the State’s case. The trial judge recognized this fact when he referred to Mann as the “State’s main witness.” It is true that some of Mann’s testimony was corroborated by other witnesses for the State. However, their testimony was impeached by defense counsel. Therefore, it is possible that the jury relied solely on the testimony of Harold Mann in order to convict appellant. In short, I am not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s error did not contribute to appellant’s conviction.