not otherwise admissible as bearing on credibility, a trial court’s decision not to permit cross-examination on the subject will not be deemed an abuse of discretion.” See also J. Murphy, Jr., Maryland Evidence Handbook, § 1302(E)(1)(c) at 667 (2d ed. 1993) (Watkins held that “the trial judge has discretion to permit or prohibit questions about probation and/or pending charges”). We agree with the State. In the instant case, the trial judge conducted a hearing outside the presence of the jury, allowing Ebb to question the witnesse App.1994). In fact, Judge Cave did what we suggested in Smallwood and Watkins. He held a hearing outside the presence of the jury, engaged in a balancing process and determined that the evidence had little or no probative value. See Grace, 643 So.2d at 1308 (<HOLDING>). In determining the admissibility of the
recognizing that prudence of hearing out of presence of jury to determine admissibility of identification evidence has been emphasized by many decisions in the united states courts of appeals most of which have in various ways admonished trial courts to use that procedure holding a pretrial hearing on the waiver of counsel conducted three weeks before trial was the start of the trial stage where there were no changes between the pretrial hearing and the trial holding trial court properly conducted hearing outside jurys presence to determine admissibility of the evidence and the existence of a deal holding that evidence regarding the existence of an oral contract and its subsequent modification supported the jurys verdict holding that it is error for a trial court to admit evidence of prior bad acts without properly conditioning the jurys use of that evidence