State v. Vogleson

The trial court violated the defendant's right of confrontation when it refused to allow defense counsel to question defendant's accomplice about the amount of prison time he thought he was avoiding by testifying against the defendant.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellee Owen Vogleson was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine.1 A divided Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction on the ground that Vogleson’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was abridged when his counsel was not permitted to cross-examine his co-indictee, Damon Wilson, about the scope of the deal Wilson had negotiated with the State in exchange for his testimony against appellant. Vogleson v. State, 250 Ga. App. 555 1 552 SE2d 513 2001.2 We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to address whether the Court of Appeals erred. We conclude the Court of Appeals was correct and affirm its reversal of the judgment of conviction.

In the case at bar, the jury was made aware during the State’s direct examination of Wilson that Wilson had agreed to testify against Vogleson in exchange for the district attorney’s recommendation that Wilson serve ten years, “a reduction in the amount of time he was to receive in this case . . . .” Through defense counsel’s cross-examination of Wilson, the jury learned that Wilson had agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offense, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and to the marijuana charge, and was not going to face the firearms charge. What the jury was not permitted to hear was Wilson’s testimony about his understanding of the disparity between the sentence the State would recommend in exchange for his cooperation and the sentence he would have received without that cooperation. Vogelson v. State, supra, 250 Ga. App. at 560. 3

State v. Vogleson

The trial court violated the defendant's right of confrontation when it refused to allow defense counsel to question defendant's accomplice about the amount of prison time he thought he was avoiding by testifying against the defendant.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report