 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Werner6/5/2003
d 376, 378 (R.I. 1991). In any event, defendant was allowed to cross-examine Det. Frenette on the discrepancies between the two reports. The trial justice declined to allow him to call former prosecutor Steven Dambruch to the stand in an effort to suggest that Dambruch had persuaded Det. Frenette to create another report that was more favorable to the state. The trial justice found this to be mere speculation.
We have examined defendant's arguments concerning limitations on his right to cross-examine in various contexts. We are of the opinion that no limitation imposed by the trial justice impaired the constitutional right of defendant to cross-examine. Any limitation imposed by the trial justice was well within his discretion and in no instance constituted prejudicial error. The defendant has failed to establish that the trial justice violated his constitutional right to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the case at bar.
IX. Defendant's Supplemental Pro Se Brief
The defendant has filed a pro se brief as a supplement to the briefs filed by the public defender and additional counsel. This brief raises the following issues: (1) the refusal of the justice who passed upon his IADA claim to recuse herself; (2) the denial of his motion to dismiss because the state destroyed exculpatory evidence (the destruction of the Mercury Monarch by the wrecking company when it was unclaimed for eight days); (3) the denial of defendant's requests for transcripts of the testimony of certain trial witnesses and transcripts of certain preliminary hearing testimony to be furnished during the course of the trial; (4) the trial justice's permitting witness Kenneth Gammon to testify concerning the shotgun; and (5) the trial justice's allowing photographs into evidence.
We have carefully considered defendant's arguments in support of these issues. In some instances we have commented in this opinion on similar arguments raised by defendant's attorneys.
In respect to the defendant's arguments that were not raised by his attorneys, we consider them to be unpersuasive in establishing, in any instance, that either the motion justice or the trial justice committed prejudicial error.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the appeal of the defendant is denied and dismissed. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court.
Justices Goldberg and Flaherty did not participate.
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.
|
|