Cross Examination
Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
State v. Bowers, No. M2022-00949-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2023).
Issues of constitutional interpretation, on the other hand, are questions of law, which we review de novo without any presumption of correctness given to the legal conclusions of the courts below. Id. (citation omitted).
State v. Hardison, No. E2022-00207-CCA-R3-CD, p. 37 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2023).
The propriety, scope, manner, and control of the cross-examination of witnesses rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d 458, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citing Coffee v. State, 216 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Tenn. 1948), and Davis v. State, 212 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tenn. 1948)). Absent a clear abuse of discretion that results in manifest prejudice to the defendant, this court will not interfere with the trial court’s exercise of its discretion on matters pertaining to the examination of witnesses. State v. Johnson, 670 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (citing Monts v. State, 379 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1964)).
State v. Ivory, No. W2022-00843-CCA-R3-CD, p. 25 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 28, 2023).
“The propriety, scope, manner, and control of cross-examination of witnesses . . . remain within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413, 429 (Tenn. 2017) (citing State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 285 (Tenn. 2012)). “A defendant has the right to examine witnesses to impeach their credibility or to establish that the witnesses are biased. This includes the right to examine a witness regarding any promises of leniency, promises to help the witness, or any other favorable treatment offered to the witness.” State v. Sayles, 49 S.W.3d 275, 279 (Tenn. 2001); Tenn. R. Evid. 616. “[A] defendant’s right to confrontation does not preclude a trial court from imposing limits upon cross-examination which take into account such factors as harassment, prejudice, issue confrontation, witness safety, or merely repetitive or marginally relevant interrogation.” State v. Reid, 882 S.W.2d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). We will not disturb a trial court’s limits on cross- examination unless the court unreasonably restricted this right. Id. (citing State v. Reid, 213 S.W.3d 792, 839 (Tenn. 2006)).
State v. Vaughn, No. W2022-00364-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 31, 2023).
This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling under Rule 608(b) using an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 303 (Tenn. 2002).
State v. Starks-Twilley, No. W2022-00020-CCA-R3-CD, p. 20-21 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2023).
Generally, the propriety, scope, manner and control of the cross-examination of witnesses rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440, 460 (Tenn. 2010); State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 540 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d 458, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). However, the questions on cross-examination are “subject to the restrictions created by the applicable statutes, rules of evidence, rules of criminal procedure, and the common law rules created by the appellate courts.” State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 644-45 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Bland, No. W2022-00174-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 2, 2023).
However, “the scope of cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court; that discretion will not be disturbed absent abuse.” State v. Lewis, 803 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). A trial court abuses its discretion in limited the scope of cross-examination of witnesses if the court “unreasonably restricts a defendant’s right to cross-examine a witness against him.” State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 285 (Tenn. 2012).
State v. Garrity, No. M2022-00725-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 18, 2023).
Denial of a defendant’s right to effective cross-examination is “‘constitutional error of the first magnitude’” and may violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial. State v. Hill, 598 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). “The propriety, scope, manner and control of the cross-examination of witnesses, however, rests within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d 458, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Coffee v. State, 216 S.W.2d 702, 703 (1948). This Court will not disturb the limits that a trial court has placed upon cross-examination unless the court has unreasonably restricted the right. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d at 463; State v. Fowler, 373 S.W.2d 460, 466 (1963).
State v. Johnson, No. E2022-00302-CCA-R3-CD, p. 18 (Tenn. Ct Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2023).
“The propriety, scope, manner, and control of cross-examination of witnesses, however, remain within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 285 (Tenn. 2012).
State v. Light, No. E2022-00402-CCA-R3-CD, p. 18 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 6, 2022).
The propriety, scope, manner, and control of the cross-examination of witnesses rests within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d 458, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
State v. Erwin, No. E2021-01232-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 15, 2022).
“Appellate courts may not disturb the limits on cross-examination except when there has been an unreasonable restriction on the right.” Id. (citing State v. Fowler, 373 S.W.2d 460, 466 (1963); State v. Johnson, 670 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)).
State v. Tice, No. M2021-00495-CCA-R3-CD, p. 56-57 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 18, 2022).
Generally, the propriety, scope, manner and control of the cross-examination of witnesses rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440, 460 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 540 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d 458, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)). The right of cross- examination “is subject to the restrictions created by the applicable statutes, rules of evidence, rules of criminal procedure, and the common law rules created by the appellate courts.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 644-45. “‘[A] defendant’s right to confrontation does not preclude a trial court from imposing limits upon cross-examination which take into account such factors as harassment, prejudice, issue confrontation, witness safety, or merely repetitive or marginally relevant interrogation.’” State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751, 770 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting State v. Reid, 882 S.W.2d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)). “The scope of cross-examination is largely in the discretion of the trial court[,] and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion to the manifest prejudice to the complaining party.” State v. Johnson, 670 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
State v. Wilkey, No. E2021-00549-CCA-R3-CD, p. 25 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 1, 2022).
Cross-examination is a fundament right under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 430-31 (Tenn. 2000). However, “[w]hile the right of cross-examination is fundamental, its exercise is controlled by the discretionary authority of the trial judge.” State v. Zirkle, 910 S.W.2d 874, 890 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Generally, “‘the propriety, scope, manner and control of the examination of witnesses’” lies within the court’s discretion. State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440, 460 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 540 (Tenn. 1993)). Accordingly, “‘a defendant’s right to confrontation does not preclude a trial court from imposing limits upon cross-examination which take into account such factors as harassment, prejudice, issue confrontation, witness safety, or merely repetitive or marginally relevant interrogation.’” State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751, 770 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting State v. Reid, 882 S.W.2d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)). An unreasonable restriction of the right to cross-examine witnesses constitutes an abuse of discretion. State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 285 (Tenn. 2012); see State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413, 429 (Tenn. 2017). Because the right is constitutional, “[w]hen a defendant is denied the right to conduct an effective cross-examination, the conviction will stand only if the violation is deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Echols, 382 S.W.3d at 285.
State of Tennessee v. Moore, No. M2020-01147-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2022).
“Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974). A trial “court shall exercise appropriate control over the presentation of evidence and conduct of the trial when necessary to avoid abuse by counsel.” Tenn. R. Evid. 611(a). “The scope of cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court; that discretion will not be disturbed absent abuse.” State v. Lewis, 803 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility[.]” Tenn. R. Evid. 611(b). The right to effective cross-examination is subject to harmless error review. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680-81 (1986); Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 252-53; Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 167 (Tenn. 1999).
State of Tennessee v. McDaniel, No. E2019-01862-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2022).
A defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him includes the right to conduct meaningful cross-examination. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51 (1987); State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 430-31 (Tenn. 2000). “Generally speaking, a denial of the right to an effective cross-examination is ‘constitutional error of the first magnitude and amounts to a violation of the basic right to a fair trial.’” State v. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d 458, 463 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995) (quoting State v. Hill, 598 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980)). Additionally, the right to cross-examine a witness for bias is a fundamental right. State v. Rice, 184 S.W .3d 646, 670 (Tenn. 2006). However, “a defendant’s right to confrontation does not preclude a trial court from imposing limits upon cross-examination which take into account such factors as harassment, prejudice, issue confusion, witness safety, or merely repetitive or marginally relevant interrogation.” State v. Reid, 882 S.W.2d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Moreover, “where there is a conflict between the basic right of a defendant to compulsory process and the witness’s right against self-incrimination, . . . the right against self-incrimination is the stronger and paramount right.” The propriety, scope, manner, and control of the cross-examination of witnesses rests within the discretion of the trial court, and this court will not disturb the limits placed upon cross-examination by a trial court unless the court has unreasonably restricted the right. Dishman, 915 S.W.2d at 463.
