State v. Hubbard

Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of escape in the second degree, reckless driving and attempting to elude a police officer. He appeals, contending that the trial judge erred by refusing to allow him to cross-examine Officer Brose, the prosecution’s principal witness, about his knowledge of standard police department procedures employed against officers who use unnecessary force.1 According to defendant’s counsel at trial, the purpose of the thwarted cross-examination was to “test [Brose] for bias and corruption.” We reverse.

At trial, Brose and defendant gave drastically different…