Use Adobe's Conversion Tool to convert the following PDF files into text in the event that you are viewing this page with assistive technology that is not compatible.

Vaughn v. Com., 2004-SC-000462-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict which convicted Vaughn of first-degree assault, first-degree robbery, first-degree arson and as a first-degree persistent felony offender. He was sentenced to life in prison on each count to run concurrently. The sole question presented here is whether it was an abuse of discretion by the trial judge to decline to allow Vaughn to cross-examine a police officer regarding statements made to the victim because it infringed on the right to present a defense . Vaughn went to the home of the victim seeking employment . After talking a few minutes and drinking a beer, the victim told Vaughn he did not have any work for him at that time . Vaughn left the home but returned at approximately 11 p.m ., demanded money, beat up the victim, took a small amount of money and set the house on fire . The victim testified that Vaughn muttered that he could not let the victim live and that he did not have "no trouble killing [my daughter]," that is the defendant's daughter. At trial, the victim testified regarding the statement uttered by Vaughn during the attack . Defense counsel did not object to the comment regarding the daughter of Vaughn and did not question the victim about the remark. The prosecution called the sheriff to testify as to the report of the crimes which he did . Defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the sheriff about his work on an unrelated prior crime, the death of the defendant's daughter. The prosecution objected to the cross-examination on the basis of relevancy . The trial judge considered the arguments of both counsel and concluded that the cross-examination was not relevant to the proceedings underway . At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Vaughn guilty of all charges. This appeal followed. Vaughn now argues that the refusal of the trial judge to permit the defendant to cross-examine the police officer regarding statements made to the victim is reversible error because it infringes on the right of the defendant to present a defense. We disagree .