After the State finishes questioning its witness, the defense can ask questions during a process called cross-examination. Leading questions are permitted during cross-examination. A defendant cannot complain about unfavorable testimony from a witness that defense counsel brings out on cross-examination where the testimony is in response to the defense attorney's questions. Dunn v. State, 291 Ga. 551 (2012)
The Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees the right of the defendant to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Miller v. State, 289 Ga. 854 (2011). The main and essential purpose of the right of confrontation is to secure for the defendant the opportunity of cross-examination. The right to a thorough and sifting cross-examination is also set forth in O.C.G.A. § 24964; O.C.G.A. § 24-6-611.
Although a defendant is entitled to a thorough and sifting cross examination of witnesses against him, the judge is given the discretion to limit the scope of cross examination to matters that are material to the issues to be decided by the jury. Grovner v. State, 317 Ga. App. 623 (2012). Judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. Jimmerson v. State, 289 Ga. 364 (2011); Rayner v. State, 307 Ga. App. 861 (2011). The judge's exercise of its discretion to limit cross-examination will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is abused. Gonzalez v. State, 310 Ga. App. 348 (2011); Chambers v. State 308 Ga. App. 748 (2011); O.C.G.A. § 24-6-623 (A witness has the right to be examined only as to relevant matters and to be protected from improper questions and from harsh or insulting demeanor).
In order to raise on appeal the judge's refusal to allow certain questions on cross-examination, the defendant has to make a record outside the presence of the jury. On the record, the attorney must either ask the questions he desires to ask or state to the judge what questions he desires to ask and then make timely objection to the ruling of the judge denying the right to ask the questions. Abercrombie v. State, 307 Ga. App. 321 (2010); Ware v. State, 307 Ga. App. 782 (2011). In determining whether the limits imposed by the judge were reasonable, the appeals court looks to whether the jury had sufficient information to make a discriminatory appraisal of the witness' motives and bias. Haggard v. State. 302 Ga. App. 502 (2010).