Motion in limine to preclude testimony on cross-examination; Scope of cross-examination; MRE 611(c); Right of confrontation; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Credibility; Other acts evidence; Character for truthfulness; MRE 608(b)(1); Common scheme, plan, or motive; MRE 404(b)(2)

Holding that the trial court erred by granting the prosecution’s motion in limine to preclude cross-examination of a police witness (Sergeant L) on allegations of misconduct relating to another witness, the court reversed the order. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion in limine to preclude the cross-examination of Sergeant L regarding his conduct with a witness at his house. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the exclusion of this evidence would violate his right of confrontation. “[T]here is no dispute that Sergeant [L] was involved in the investigation into the victim’s death. [He] participated in the search for the victim’s body, investigated and took photographs of the scene, searched defendant’s house, and participated in multiple witness interviews.” As such, his “actions were not collateral to this case, and evidence bearing on his credibility is relevant.” In addition, “it was during the investigation of this case that [he] threatened to get the witness in trouble for cocaine, requested she spend the night, and was intoxicated while attempting to interview her as a witness.” Further, although “this evidence would be prejudicial, it would not be unfairly so. The trial court erred when it excluded all allegations of misconduct because the complete exclusion is disproportionate to the purpose of preventing jury confusion.” And its “complete limitation on cross-examination prevents defendant from placing before the jury facts from which bias, prejudice, or lack of credibility of a prosecution witness might be inferred, and, so, it constitutes denial of the” right of confrontation. “Defendant should be able to inquire about matters that bear on Sergeant [L’s] credibility and that are relevant to his investigation.” Finally, the “trial court erred by barring any inquiry during cross-examination into the interaction between Sergeant [L] and the witness because some of the specific instances of conduct are probative of [his] character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”