California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lara, H046775 (Cal. App. 2020):
Further, a defendant's "right to cross-examination is not a matter of 'absolute right.' Although . . . '[c]ross-examination to test the credibility of a prosecuting witness in a criminal case should be given wide latitude' [citation], such latitude does not 'prevent the trial court from imposing reasonable limits on defense counsel's inquiry based on concerns about harassment, confusion of the issues, or relevance' [citation]. Moreover, reliance on Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence of marginal impeachment value that would entail the undue consumption of time generally does not contravene a defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation and cross-examination." (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 545.) "The trial court retains wide latitude to restrict repetitive, prejudicial, confusing, or marginally relevant cross-examination.
Page 23
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.