"[G]reat latitude" should be allowed on cross-examination, especially regarding a witness's bias. State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983).
We note that a criminal defendant should be afforded wide latitude to cross-examine a victim about civil litigation arising from the crime. See, e.g., State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916, 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993); State v. Taurys K. Walls, No. 02C01-9601-CR-00019, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 14, 1998). "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
Tenn. R. Evid. 616. In State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983), the trial court did not allow the defendant, who was on trial for aggravated assault, to cross-examine the victim about whether the victim had filed a civil suit against him, finding that the evidence was irrelevant. This court held that the trial court should have allowed the questions, stating that "great latitude is allowed in cross-examination, particularly cross-examinations showing the witness' interest or bias."
Rule 616, Tenn.R.Evid., provides that a witness' bias for or prejudice against a party or another witness may be proven by cross-examination, extrinsic evidence, or both. As the Advisory Commission Comment to the rule notes, such evidence is an important ground for impeachment. Indeed, the rule merely embodies principles long established by preceding case law. In State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983), this court held that the defense could properly cross-examine a victim about the filing of a civil suit against the defendant because it was relevant to show the victim's bias or interest. It stated: Our appellate courts have held consistently that great latitude is allowed in cross-examination, particularly cross-examinations showing the witness' interest or bias. Union Traction Company v. Todd, 64 S.W.2d 26, 16 Tenn. App. 200 (1933).
It is the experience of trial courts that witnesses are often as much influenced in testifying by feelings of friendship or hostility to parties to the case as by direct pecuniary interest in the result of the trial. . . .Creeping Bear v. State, 87 S.W.653, 654 (Tenn. 1905); see also State v. Lewis, 803 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916, 918-19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). In this case, the trial court permitted the State to question the witness about threats made prior to his testimony by unnamed, unidentified people out in the hallway outside the courtroom.
In order to establish interest or bias, a witness for the state in a criminal case may be questioned regarding whether he or she has filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant as a result of the acts involved in the criminal case. State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983). The defendant maintains the trial court erred in refusing to admit a copy of the victim's civil complaint into evidence.
The lack of remorse may be a basis for the denial of probation. Smith, 735 S.W.2d at 863; State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916, 919 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983). Moreover, a lack of candor or untruthful testimony reflects poorly upon the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and thus, may be a proper basis for the denial of probation.
Generally, a civil claim by a victim for injuries inflicted by a criminal defendant is relevant to witness bias.Cribbs v. State, 205 Tenn. 138, 139, 325 S.W.2d 567 (1959); State v. Russell, 735 S.W.2d 840, 842-843 (Tenn.Crim.App.), per. app.denied (Tenn. 1987); State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916, 918-919 (Tenn.Crim.App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1993).
See Williams, 827 S.W.2d at 808 (citing Creeping Bear v. State, 113 Tenn. 322, 87 S.W. 653 (1905)). See also State v. Lewis, 803 S.W.2d 260 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983)). It is a well established principle that bias or prejudice of a witness is always relevant regardless of whether the matter stems from a sexual relationship.
This Court has held that "for the purpose of showing interest, or bias, a witness for the prosecution in a criminal case may be questioned as to whether he has brought an action against the accused, based on the acts involved in the criminal case." State v. Horne, 652 S.W.2d 916, 919 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983). In the instant case, the excluded evidence showed that Brinkley, the key witness in this case, sought monetary compensation in the total amount of $73,000 due to Defendant's actions.