State v. Howard

MARTIN, Judge.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially restricted his right of cross-examination. Specifically, he argues that the trial court improperly limited his opportunity to cross-examine and impeach State’s witness Wilson by sustaining the State’s objections to certain questions relative to Wilson’s testimony at a previous hearing.

Our courts have oft stated the rule that “the legitimate bounds of cross-examination are largely within the discretion of the trial judge, so that his ruling will not be held as prejudicial error absent a showing that the…