CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Method of Exam: Cross-Exam
......Scope of Examination
.........Scope Properly Limited
 24 Cards On This Topic:
  • Right to confront witnesses through cross-exam limited to issues relevant to trial.
  • Court properly restricted D's exam of detective re 3d party culpability where detective's proffered testimony did not tend to link anyone other than D to "actual perpetration" of charged crime.
  • Trial ct. within its discretion in excluding impeachment evidence re D’s wife’s uncharged welfare fraud, where no evidence connected alleged fraud with her testimony.
  • Record presented no basis to conclude that excluding the evidence of D’s sister-in-law’s misdemeanor conviction would have been an abuse of the court’s broad discretion.
  • No abuse of discretion in excluding D’s sister-in-law’s probation status for drug possession where not connected to any specific showing it could have affected her testimony.
  • D suffered no prejudice nor bias when court sustained DA's objection to cross-exam question re immunity, where defense atty did not object, but continued with his "spirited" cross-exam.
  • Trial ct. correctly limited D's cross-exam. to questions relevant to W's credibility, and medical condition only as it related to observation and recollection.
  • No constitutional rights violated in sustaining atty-client privilege objection during D's cross-exam of W where he was not "completely precluded" from exploring whether promises made in exchange for testimony.
  • Cross-exam questions about witness' alleged theft of lawnmower only marginally relevant to underlying issue of whether DA had agreement not to prosecute W if he testified against D in murder case.
  • Objections to D's cross-exam of witness re sniffles and drug use properly sustained where jury knew he used drugs in past, and use at time of trial only tangentially relevant to his veracity.
  • If DA's questioning of D's sister about break-in next door to her was improper, it was not prejudicial where court found questioning lacked foundation and admonished jury to disregard.
  • No prejudicial misconduct in DA's insinuating on cross that Ws conspired with absent third inmate to falsely blame officer for starting jailhouse fight with D; where no mention in closing and jury instructed that insinuation not evidence.
  • Even if cross-exam of W about treatment for mental illness could sometimes be relevant, evidence in this case that W received therapy would add little to specific evidence that she had significant fantasies.
  • D's 6th Amend. right not violated when he was prohibited from cross-examining V about her website, content of which was not relevant and defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine V and challenge credibility.
  • No abuse of discretion in ruling the limited probative value from cross-exam. about W's prior prison terms and voluntary 72-hour hold did not justify "mini-trials" that would have likely arisen.
  • Confrontation clause guarantees chance to confront and cross examine, but not right to ask particular form of question.
  • Court's order curtailing cross-exam was appropriate to protect W from undue harassment, in view of repeated questions permitted re previous photo lineup.
  • D not denied opportunity to cross-examine and impeach witness where impeachment evidence more prejudicial than probative.
  • Cross-exam with evidence of intravenous drug use by D in trial for cultivation of marijuana highly prejudicial.
  • Court has power and duty to confine cross-exam to matters which are relevant and material.
  • Although considerable latitude shall be allowed in cross-exam, not abuse of discretion to prevent party from twice examining witness on same subject.
  • Court properly placed reasonable limits on cross-exam in criminal proceeding.
  • Cross-exam of witness properly limited to matters testified to on direct; general rules stated.
  • Judge has duty to keep cross-exam within reasonable bounds.


    •