Payne v. State
2017 Ark. App. 572
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Willie Ronay Payne was charged with aggravated residential burglary, aggravated robbery, theft, and separately as a felon in possession of a firearm; his case was severed from co-defendants.
- Trial occurred October 4, 2016; Payne was convicted on the three counts and sentenced to 420 months in ADC.
- During cross-examination, defense counsel asked leading questions of several witnesses; the court and prosecutor did not object for three witnesses (Dodson, Ridgell, Wigfall).
- The trial court sua sponte interrupted and ordered defense counsel to stop asking leading questions of witness Jeremiah Noel; defense counsel complied and did not proffer Noel’s expected testimony.
- On appeal, Payne argued the court erred by preventing leading questions of Noel (and asserted similar restrictions occurred with other witnesses); the Court of Appeals declined to review the claim and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in sua sponte forbidding leading questions on cross-examination of witness Jeremiah Noel | Payne: court improperly restricted cross-examination and thus prejudiced his defense | State: trial-court ruling permitted under evidentiary rules depending on witness alignment; no reversible error shown | Affirmed — claim not reviewable because defense failed to proffer Noel’s expected testimony, so appellate court cannot assess error or prejudice |
| Whether Payne was similarly prevented from asking leading questions of other witnesses (Dodson, Ridgell, Wigfall) | Payne: court prevented leading in their cross-examinations as well | State: record shows leading questions were asked of those witnesses without objection | Affirmed — record contradicts Payne’s assertion; leading questions were permitted for those witnesses |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. State, 470 S.W.3d 676 (Ark. 2015) (proponent must proffer excluded evidence at trial so appellate court can review ruling)
- Arnett v. State, 122 S.W.3d 484 (Ark. 2003) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings requires proffer to determine error and prejudice)