 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Werner6/5/2003
e that the trial justice's decision to deny a mistrial is accorded great weight and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. State v. Aponte, 800 A.2d 420, 427 (R.I. 2002). We hold that, in declining to grant the four motions for a mistrial, the trial justice did not commit an abuse of discretion in any of the four instances. We further hold that the cumulative effect of these rulings did not deprive defendant of a fundamentally fair trial. The trial justice did not commit reversible error either in the individual rulings or in the cumulative effect thereof.
VIII. The Trial Justice's Alleged Limitation of Defendant's Right of Cross-Examination
The defendant argues that in a number of instances the trial justice impermissibly curtailed his right of cross-examination. We have held in numerous cases including State v. Bustamante, 756 A.2d 758, 765 (R.I. 2000), that a defendant has a constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses presented by the prosecution. We also have held that a defendant must be accorded "reasonable latitude" to inquire into the bias, motive or prejudice on the part of a witness. State v. Hazard, 745 A.2d 748, 756 (R.I. 2000). We also have held that the right to cross-examination is not unlimited and does not include an absolute right to ask any and every question that the defendant may desire. State v. DePina, 810 A.2d 768, 775 (R.I. 2002). When sufficient cross-examination has been allowed in order to satisfy the safeguards required by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution, Declaration of Rights, further cross-examination may be limited or precluded within the discretion of the trial justice. Bustamante, 756 A.2d at 765.
The trial justice noted in this case that in the cross-examination of Sgt. Appollonio, defendant was urging his attorney to ask irrelevant and immaterial questions. For example, examination into the booking procedures of the West Warwick Police Department relating to Norman Ducharme was precluded on grounds of relevance. The trial justice ultimately limited, after an extensive examination concerning the towing of seized vehicles and responsibility for notifying their owners, a question that he deemed irrelevant concerning a vehicle survey required by the General Laws. The trial justice noted that this was a repetitive line of questioning and constituted nothing more than defendant's attempt to control and delay the proceedings.
The defendant raises the issue of his attempt to cross-examine witness Stoddard about his previous criminal convictions. The trial justice already had granted a motion in limine that we have considered in part V of this opinion. The attempt to cross-examine on this same issue certainly would have resulted in overruling the justice's earlier determination, which we have upheld. The fact that counsel for defendant ingeniously sought to use Stoddard's interrogatories in connection with his victim's compensation litigation was not a basis for requiring the trial justice to overrule his previous determination.
The defendant contends that the trial justice erred in limiting his attempt to cross-examine Det. Norman Frenette in relation to his report concerning a fingerprint from the shotgun that could not be matched with defendant's known fingerprint. The defendant sought to refer to an earlier report in which Det. Frenette determined that the fingerprint from the shotgun was not defendant's. The distinction between the two possible reports was of minimal significance, and the limitation by the trial justice of pursuit of this issue would, at most, be harmless error, if indeed it was error at all. State v. Texter, 594 A.2
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|