concurring specially.
I concur fully in Divisions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the majority opinion and in the judgments affirming the convictions of the appellants. However, with regard to Division 2, I agree with neither the majority’s characterization of the enumeration nor its resolution thereof. Actually, the thrust of the enumeration is that the trial court improperly abridged the thorough and sifting cross-examination to which every party in a Georgia trial is entitled. While I do believe that, to some extent, the trial court did curtail cross-examination by McWilliams’ attorneys, for the reasons which follow, I do not believe that such action by the trial court constitutes reversible error.
At the outset, it should be emphasized that witness Hay was on cross-examination by appellant McWilliams when the trial court sustained the state’s objection to the following question: “Well, if I said to you that what you are charged with is a conspiracy with Mr. Bond to do the things that I have indicated, would you say that you are guilty of that?” (Emphasis supplied.) A review of the transcript indicates that, prior to this ruling occurring during McWilliams’ cross-examination of Hay, Hay had already been subjected to cross-examination on behalf of appellant Bond. During this previous cross-examination by Bond, Hay testified extensively with regard to the events leading up to the entry of his plea of guilty and the reasons which underlay that plea. Hay testified as to his original belief in his innocence but that, notwithstanding his personal belief, he had been persuaded that under the law of conspiracy he was guilty. During that cross-examination, Hay also responded in the negative when he was specifically asked if he believed himself “to be guilty of a conspiracy with Carey Bond to defraud the state?”
During cross-examination by the appellant McWilliams, Hay was again questioned with regard to his part in the alleged conspiracy and during that cross-examination he was asked if he had entered “into an agreement with Carey Bond, Mr. McWilliams, Mr. Bankston, and Roberts Engineering Corporation pursuant to which [he] and the other contractors would build a house for Mr. Bond in exchange for *454his agreement to approve any invoices that [they] sent through the fiscal office?” To that question, to which there was no objection, Hay responded: “No sir.” He was then asked by McWilliams’ counsel whether he was “aware” of “the agreement” which underlay the charges against him “in this case.” Hay responded as follows: “Of what I was charged with in the case, to my understanding, was that I had went out and bought those items, and that by doing that, and by [appellant McWilliams] asking me to do that, that I had conspired with him to steal from the State. That was what I pled guilty to.” It was then that appellant McWilliams asked the question which is at issue on appeal. As noted, that question concerned whether Hay would say that he was guilty of “a conspiracy with Mr. Bond. . . .”
Decided December 5, 1985 Rehearings denied January 7, 1986 R. Alex Crumbley, for appellant (case no. 70947). John R. Martin, for appellant (case no. 71135). Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, G. Thomas Davis, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.It appears from a review of the entire transcript that in response to numerous inquiries, Hay denied that he had directly conspired with appellant Bond but that he nevertheless pled guilty to the conspiracy charge as a result of his connection with appellant McWilliams. Both appellants were allowed to pursue this area of inquiry during the respective cross-examinations of Hay. Unquestionably, a party is entitled to a thorough and sifting cross-examination of all witnesses called by other parties. However, the trial court retains a discretion to control the right of cross-examination within reasonable bounds and the appellate courts will not control this exercise of discretion in the absence of a showing of abuse. See generally Crawford v. State, 154 Ga. App. 362, 363 (268 SE2d 414) (1980). “It has been held that the exclusion of unnecessarily repetitious questions which have been previously propounded and answered does not constitute an abuse of discretion. [Cits.]” Johnson v. State, 137 Ga. App. 308, 309-310 (223 SE2d 500) (1976). Accordingly, it is my opinion that the issue raised by the enumeration discussed in Division 2 of the majority opinion should be resolved on the basis that, in sustaining the state’s objection to what appeared to be repetitious cross-examination of Hay, the trial court did not so clearly abuse its discretion as to commit reversible error.