Trial Court Erred in Limiting Husband’s Cross Examination of Wife’s Witnesses

In the case of Campbell v. Campbell, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, ruled that the trial court in the case abused its discretion by preventing husband from cross-examining wife’s witnesses due to the time limits it imposed.  The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court.  The trial court ordered that each party had a designated amount of time to present their evidence and cross-examine the opposing party’s witnesses. Solely as a result of the time limit on the presention of evidence and the cross-examination of witnesses previously announced by the trial court, husband was unable to cross-examine wife’s handwriting expert and one factual witness regarding the authenticity of husband’s signature on a martial agreement, the validity of which was being challenged as part of the proceedings. 

Virginia has recognized a fundamental right to cross-examination on a matter relevant to the litigation, which applies in civil cases. Furthermore, Code § 8.01-401(A) provides that “[a] party called to testify for another, having an adverse interest, may be examined by such other party according to the rules applicable to cross-examination.” Even though the latitude permissible in cross-examination of witnesses is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court, the trial court’s discretion in this regard is not unfettered.  Cross-examination on a matter relevant to the litigation and put in issue by an adversary’s witness during a judicial investigation is not a privilege but an absolute right. It is only after such right has been substantially and fairly exercised that the allowance of further cross-examination becomes discretionary.  Furthermore, the failure to allow a fair opportunity for cross-examination is never harmless error.