Opinion
No. 25783
Decided May 6, 1974.
Defendant was convicted of simple robbery and appealed.
Affirmed
1. WITNESSES — Cross-Examination — Discretion — Scope and Limit — Review. A trial judge has discretion to determine the scope and limit of cross-examination; and in the absence of an abuse of discretion, the trial judge's ruling will not be disturbed on review.
2. Cross-Examination — Beyond Scope — Discretion — Simple Robbery. In prosecution for simple robbery, trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting cross-examination to extend beyond scope of direct examination over objection of defendant.
Appeal from the District Court of Mesa County, Honorable James J. Carter, Judge.
John P. Moore, Attorney General, John E. Bush, Deputy, David A. Sorenson, Assistant, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy, T. Michael Dutton, Deputy, for defendant-appellant.
[1,2] Rickey Lee Homan was charged and convicted of simple robbery. C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-1. On appeal, he contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in overruling his objection and permitting cross-examination to extend beyond the scope of direct examination.
A trial judge has discretion to determine the scope and the limit of cross-examination. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, the trial judge's ruling will not be disturbed on review. Archina v. People, 135 Colo. 8, 307 P.2d 1083 (1957). Accord, People v. King, 179 Colo. 94, 498 P.2d 1142 (1972). See also Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts and Magistrates, Rule 6-11; 3A, J. Wigmore, Evidence § 944 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); C. McCormick, Evidence § 24 (2d ed. 1972).
Accordingly, we affirm.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE does not participate.