Woods v. State
657 P.2d 180
Okla. Crim. App.
1983
Check Treatment

*1 WOODS, Appellant, Bennie J.

Court of Criminal Oklahoma.

L.Ed.2d Davis the Supreme wrote, at supra Court 94 S.Ct. at 1110: principle Cross-examination by means which the believability of a witness and the truth of his Subject always are tested. to the broad trial judge discretion of a to repetitive unduly harassing and interro- gation, only cross-examiner is not permitted story to delve into the witness’ perceptions to test the witness’ and mem- ory, but the cross-examiner has tradition- i.e., been to ally impeach, allowed discred- particular the witness.... A more credibility attack on the witness’ is ef- by fected means of di- cross-examination biases, revealing possible rected toward prejudices, or ulterior motives of the wit- they may directly ness as relate to issues personalities the case at hand. The subject partiality explo- of a witness is to trial, “always at ration and relevant as Moss, Richard W. Lock and Joe for Jay, discrediting affecting the witness and appellant. weight (Citations testimony.” his Jan Cartwright, Gen., Eric Atty. Susan omitted.) Talbot, Gen., Chief, Asst. Atty. Appellate Division, City, ap- Oklahoma sought fif- The defense to discredit the pellee. teen-year-old prosecutrix’s testimony in to establish that her motive filing complaint punish to her was OPINION refusing father for to give her consent

CORNISH, Judge: fiance, her and marry twenty-four-year-old The appellant was convicted the Dis- retaliate for her father’s threats to Incest, trict Court of County Delaware for statutory rape. fiance arrested De- (10) and sentenced years’ imprison- to ten attempted elicit on cross- ment. examination that had occasions allegations made that she had been either

After a careful review of the record and sexually molested or had had intercourse briefs the parties, we are the opinion family members, and with certain that each sentence must be only key reversed. We provoked by, need address the time her i.e., issue appeal; the trial court to, or were retaliation threats to have improperly limited the defense’s cross-ex- opinion are fiance arrested. We prosecutrix. amination The defense inquiry into this area was relevant was showing foreclosed from the existence by impeach prosecutrix’s credibility of her possible motive and bias in testifying. showing to lie. propensity prosecutrix par- Impeachment of The exposure of a witness’s moti case; especially amount vation in testifying proper impor is a prosecutrix’s uncorroborated testi- since the tant function of constitutionally pro right only tected was the mony cross-examination. Davis v.

Alaska, presented. must therefore hold that U.S. S.Ct. We O.S.1981, 2611(A), Additionally, right of effec- was denied appellant pro duty the trial court the imposes on

tive cross-examination.1 undue from harassment or tect witnesses prior similar into the fact Inquiry Therefore, respect embarassment. prosecutrix made claims had been accusations made the use of proper to be a been held previously has nature to the of Dawes v. *3 subject of cross-examination. See should charged, the defense counsel fense 225, (1926). State, 246 P. 482 34 Okl.Cr. camera, court, the trial show to too, have held that the jurisdictions, Other proof providing of quantum has a sufficient direct or may through defense show either for the line of proposed a reasonable basis the wit complaining cross-examination that interrogation. At time State prior ness has made accusations to show opportunity afforded the should be charged which were nature to offense If the are true. Hurlburt, People false. v. later found be facts in cannot offer court defense 82, 334, 333 P.2d 75 A.L.R.2d Cal.App.2d 166 support falsity of the reasonable 49, Simbolo, 188 (1958); People 500 v. Colo. accusations, probative have no they then 37 (1975); People Sheperd, P.2d 962 v. 532 and should impeachment purposes value 336, (1976); People 551 P.2d 210 Colo.App. subject on cross-exami allowed as a not be 617, McClure, 952, 1 Ill.App.3d 42 Ill.Dec. v. protect complaining nation. This is State, (1976); Little v. 413 356 N.E.2d 899 raising of un against witness v. Wil (Ind.App.1980); People 639 N.E.2d relevan innuendoes as well as to insure fair son, 669, (1912); 170 Mich. 137 N.W. 92 in Peo procedures similar outlined cy. See Evans, 367, People v. 72 Mich. 40 N.W. supra. ple Sheperd, v. Warner, (1888); v. Utah P.2d 317 case, we reiterate reversing a wit specific Use of instances of inquiry impeachment is limited is impeachment purposes ness’s conduct for witness to the extent complaining Evi governed by several sections of the bias, and not for it shows motive O.S.1981, pertinent part, dence Code. In moral character. Fur purpose to show bad 2404(B), other provides that evidence of § thermore, is limited under prove the character acts is not admissible to de 2608(B), in that if the witness supra, § that he or she person of a order to show conduct, counsel is impeaching nies conformity may, acted in therewith. may answer bound however, purposes, be admissible for other extrinsic evidence to contradict offer 2608(B), proof such as of motive. Under § witness. title, of the specific of the same instances RE- and sentence The witness, purpose conduct of a a new trial REMANDED for VERSED and oth attacking supporting credibility, opinion. findings consistent with the crime, not be may er than conviction of proven by They may, extrinsic evidence. BUSSEY, Judge, dissents: discretion, however, within the trial court’s While it is I must dissent. probative respectfully if of truthfulness or untruthful ness, rejected the inquired the court be into on cross-examination defendant, true equally it is of the of the witness if concern his or allowed defense counsel that the trial court character for truthfulness or untruthful cross-examining prose- latitude in great ness. falsify O.S.1981, lishing holding, or bias to are distinct. In so we that 22 motive note State, (Okl. Contra, govern. P.2d 118 Cameron makes does not That section § Cr.1977) (where O.S.Supp.1975, complaining previous of the witness’s rape persons re held in a case sexual conduct with other than the accused, accused, garding prior presence conduct of sexual or not in the argued prove would establish cases. which the defense inadmissible to consent testifying). purpose or bias in of estab- The issue of consent and illustration, No, cuting By way witness.

following questions propounded though You did have conversation answers received: sister, Lorita, with didn’t you? have ever had occasion to 57). anyone anyone else or Further, closing argument de- attacking you? about else anyone sexually attorney was allowed wide latitude as (Witness head) nods [Ejverytime gets he stated: she into “... THE speak You will up, COURT: she somebody some kind of trouble accuses Cindy. rape, says pregnant by she she’s some- ” is, body (Tr. 73). .... “Later on she here Q. No is the answer. from home a 24 away she has run you. The hear can’t her, boy, police are out looking old I’m sorry. gets brought caught, she back *4 ‘No,’ MR. I LOCK: was the answer be- thing happened, and what’s the next that lieve, Your Honor. Bennie get sleeping Woods accused A. No. (Tr. years her two or a later.” later Correct, Q. Cindy? Do have an un- you 75).& cle the name Abe Eslick? appears thus to me that counsel ample opportunity defense was Q. ever you Did tried bearing on question the witness issues you? testifying, them arguing her motive for 30) A. (Tr. No. I closing argument. would affirm the conviction.

Q. go Did where you parties participated drugs drinking, group BRETT, P.J., concurs. sex? BUSSEY, J., dissents.

Q. Well, it you isn’t came your you and told father orgy? to an

A. Do I have to answer that? Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. tell you you Did him that had taken boys, you? five different didn’t BYRD, Appellant, A. Not James Edward five. Q. many? How Close but five. Q. Close. MR. LOCK: No further questions.

44) [*] n ! n JjC ! n Court of of Oklahoma. 11, 1983. true, Isn’t you it told telephone them on didn’t

happen, you telling just so

you off with get go could free and

boy? No, sir, Isn’t it true that told even

own that? sister