witness test in Rhode Island

2023See United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005) (“There is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for himself.”).

2007See Sylvia, 871 A.2d at 957 .

2004Generally, “[e]vidence of intoxication is admissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness and to test his competency, his ability to perceive and remember and to communicate the subject matter of his testimony.” *1125 State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070, 1088 (R.I.1981).

1994This court has recognized that questions on cross-examination are permissible to contradict or discredit a witness or to test the witness’s memory or credibility, State v. Crowhurst, 470 A.2d 1138, 1143 (R.I.1984), and thus, the questions were permissible.

1984Rule 16 is a “criminal discovery mechanism, [that] attempts to ensure that both parties receive the fullest possible presentation of the facts prior to trial.” State v. Concannon, R.I., 457 A.2d 1350, 1353 (1983).

1977See also United States ex rel, Vitiello v. Flood, supra. However, where, as in the instant case, the confession was allegedly made to a law enforcement officer of the asylum state of Rhode Island, available as a witness, the petitioner must not be denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witness as to factors 'affecting the weight of the testimony. *546 Habeas corpus jurisdiction, in this court is concurrent with that of the Superior Court, and our proceedings are de novo rather than by way of review of the Superior Court hearing.