fullest defense in Rhode Island

2017Moreover, we have stated that a “criminal defendant has a well-established, constitutionally-protected right ⅝ * * to [an] effective cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.” State v. Bojang, 83 A.3d 526, 539 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Warner, 626 A.2d 205, 209 (R.I. 1993); see also State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37-38 , 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973) (“Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”).

2017Moreover, we have stated that a “criminal defendant has a well-established, constitutionally-protected right ⅝ * * to [an] effective cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.” State v. Bojang, 83 A.3d 526, 539 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Warner, 626 A.2d 205, 209 (R.I. 1993); see also State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37-38 , 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973) (“Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”).

2012“Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.” Id. at 37-38, 308 A.2d at 315 ; see also State v. Scurry, 636 A.2d 719, 725 (R.I.1994) (citing State v. Leonardo, 119 R.I. 7, 11 , 375 A.2d 1388, 1390 (1977)).

2012“Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.” Id. at 37-38, 308 A.2d at 315 ; see also State v. Scurry, 636 A.2d 719, 725 (R.I.1994) (citing State v. Leonardo, 119 R.I. 7, 11 , 375 A.2d 1388, 1390 (1977)).

2012“Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.” Id. at 37-38, 308 A.2d at 315 ; see also State v. Scurry, 636 A.2d 719, 725 (R.I.1994) (citing State v. Leonardo, 119 R.I. 7, 11 , 375 A.2d 1388, 1390 (1977)).

2009Therefore, he says, he was denied an “ample and sufficient opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.” State v. Scurry, 636 A.2d 719, 725 (R.I.1994).

2021See State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 865 (R.I. 2013) (“It is well settled that [d]ue process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 25 - Cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,” and it is the “principal means by which the credibility of the witness and the truthfulness of his [or her] testimony can be tested.” Tiernan, 941 A.2d at 133, 134 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735,

2020See State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 865 (R.I. 2013) (“It is well settled that [d]ue process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021See State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 865 (R.I. 2013) (“It is well settled that [d]ue process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 25 - Cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,” and it is the “principal means by which the credibility of the witness and the truthfulness of his [or her] testimony can be tested.” Tiernan, 941 A.2d at 133, 134 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735,

2021For that reason, the “denial or significant diminution” of the right to cross-examine “calls into question the ultimate integrity of the fact-finding process * * *.” Chambers, 410 U.S. at 295 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021See State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 865 (R.I. 2013) (“It is well settled that [d]ue process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 25 - Cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,” and it is the “principal means by which the credibility of the witness and the truthfulness of his [or her] testimony can be tested.” Tiernan, 941 A.2d at 133, 134 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735,

2017However, “[t]hat right is not absolute.” Bojang, 83 A.3d at 539 ; see also State v. Kausel, 68 A.3d 524, 531 (R.I. 2013).

2017Moreover, we have stated that a “criminal defendant has a well-established, constitutionally-protected right ⅝ * * to [an] effective cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.” State v. Bojang, 83 A.3d 526, 539 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Warner, 626 A.2d 205, 209 (R.I. 1993); see also State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37-38 , 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973) (“Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”).

2017However, “[t]hat right is not absolute.” Bojang, 83 A.3d at 539 ; see also State v. Kausel, 68 A.3d 524, 531 (R.I. 2013).

2017Moreover, we have stated that a “criminal defendant has a well-established, constitutionally-protected right ⅝ * * to [an] effective cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.” State v. Bojang, 83 A.3d 526, 539 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Warner, 626 A.2d 205, 209 (R.I. 1993); see also State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37-38 , 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973) (“Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.”).

2013It is well settled that “[d]ue process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.” State v. Lomba, 37 A.3d 615, 621 (R.I.2012) (quoting State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37-38 , 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973)); see also State v. Wright, 817 A.2d 600, 609 (R.I.2003).

2013Similarly free from doubt is the “self-evident proposition that ‘an appropriate defense to a charge of criminal misconduct is that another person was the true perpetrator of the crime.’ ” State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158, 1184 (R.I.2011) (quoting Wright, 817 A.2d at 609 ); see also State v. Gomes, 881 A.2d 97, 111 (R.I.2005) (“There is no question that a defendant is entitled to present a defense that implicates another person.”).

2013It is well settled that “[d]ue process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him.” State v. Lomba, 37 A.3d 615, 621 (R.I.2012) (quoting State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37-38 , 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973)); see also State v. Wright, 817 A.2d 600, 609 (R.I.2003).

2013Similarly free from doubt is the “self-evident proposition that ‘an appropriate defense to a charge of criminal misconduct is that another person was the true perpetrator of the crime.’ ” State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158, 1184 (R.I.2011) (quoting Wright, 817 A.2d at 609 ); see also State v. Gomes, 881 A.2d 97, 111 (R.I.2005) (“There is no question that a defendant is entitled to present a defense that implicates another person.”).

2013Similarly free from doubt is the “self-evident proposition that ‘an appropriate defense to a charge of criminal misconduct is that another person was the true perpetrator of the crime.’ ” State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158, 1184 (R.I.2011) (quoting Wright, 817 A.2d at 609 ); see also State v. Gomes, 881 A.2d 97, 111 (R.I.2005) (“There is no question that a defendant is entitled to present a defense that implicates another person.”).

1977State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14 , 308 A.2d 300 (1973); accord, State v. Carillo, 113 R.I. 32 , 317 A.2d 449 (1974); State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284 , 43 A.2d 323 (1945).

1977State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14 , 308 A.2d 300 (1973); accord, State v. Carillo, 113 R.I. 32 , 317 A.2d 449 (1974); State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284 , 43 A.2d 323 (1945).