cross-examination defendant in Rhode Island

2004“For cross-examination to satisfy constitutional guarantees, the trial justice is required to afford the accused ‘reasonable latitude’ to establish or reveal bias, prejudice, or ulterior motives as they may relate to the case being tried.” Id. at 756 (citing State v. Brown, 709 A.2d 465, 473 (R.I.1998)).

2004Limitation of Cross-Examination The defendant argues that the trial justice committed reversible error when he limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of “a critical state witness about two important issues.” The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 3 and article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution 4 grant individuals accused of a crime the right to confront witnesses who testify against them. “[I]ncluded in the right to confront witnesses is the fundamental right of the criminal defendant to cross-examine his or her accusers.” State v. Hazard, 745

2010Rule 611 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence limits the scope of cross-examination to "the subject matter of the direct examination." See State v. Benevides , 420 A.2d 65 , 69 (R.I. 1980).

1996“In this jurisdiction cross-examination of a witness is generally limited in scope to matters testified to on direct examination.” State v. Benevides, 420 A.2d 65, 69 (R.I.1980). “[E]vi-dence that may not be admissible in the prosecution’s case in chief may be used in rebuttal in order to counter false statements made by the accused in the course of his [or her] direct testimony.” State v. O’Dell, 576 A.2d 425, 429 (R.I.1990).

2021However, “[w]hile criminal defendants possess the constitutional right ‘to cross-examine prosecution witnesses,’ such a right ‘is far from absolute.’” State v. Danis, 182 A.3d 36, 40 (R.I. 2018) (quoting State v. Manning, 973 A.2d 524, 530 (R.I. 2009)).

2021However, “[w]hile criminal defendants possess the constitutional right ‘to cross-examine prosecution witnesses,’ such a right ‘is far from absolute.’” State v. Danis, 182 A.3d 36, 40 (R.I. 2018) (quoting State v. Manning, 973 A.2d 524, 530 (R.I. 2009)).

2021Limitation of Cross-Examination The defendant argues that the trial justice erroneously limited her cross-examination of the arresting officer by refusing to allow questioning about the officer’s sworn affidavit, which contained a false statement. -8- “Inherent in a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him or her—found in both article 1, section 10 of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution—‘is the fundamental right of the criminal defendant to cross-examine his or her accusers.’” State v. Drew, 919 A.2d 397, 41

2021Limitation of Cross-Examination The defendant argues that the trial justice erroneously limited her cross-examination of the arresting officer by refusing to allow questioning about the officer’s sworn affidavit, which contained a false statement. -8- “Inherent in a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him or her—found in both article 1, section 10 of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution—‘is the fundamental right of the criminal defendant to cross-examine his or her accusers.’” State v. Drew, 919 A.2d 397, 41

2004Limitation of Cross-Examination The defendant argues that the trial justice committed reversible error when he limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of “a critical state witness about two important issues.” The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 3 and article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution 4 grant individuals accused of a crime the right to confront witnesses who testify against them. “[I]ncluded in the right to confront witnesses is the fundamental right of the criminal defendant to cross-examine his or her accusers.” State v. Hazard, 745

2004“For cross-examination to satisfy constitutional guarantees, the trial justice is required to afford the accused ‘reasonable latitude’ to establish or reveal bias, prejudice, or ulterior motives as they may relate to the case being tried.” Id. at 756 (citing State v. Brown, 709 A.2d 465, 473 (R.I.1998)).

2003We 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.

2002V Denial of Motion to Reduce Sentence “A motion to reduce sentence under [Super.R.Crim.P.] 35 is basically a plea by a defendant for leniency and, as such, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial justice.” State v. Tiernan, 645 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.1994).

2002V Denial of Motion to Reduce Sentence "A motion to reduce sentence under [Super.R.Crim.P.] 35 is basically a plea by a defendant for leniency and, as such, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial justice." State v. Tiernan, 645 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.1994).

2000In applicable part, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that “the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Similarly, the Declaration of Rights, article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, accused persons shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against them.” This Court has consistently held that “[i]ncluded in the right to confront *756 witnesses is the fundamental right of the criminal defendant to cross-examine his or her accusers.” St

1996“In this jurisdiction cross-examination of a witness is generally limited in scope to matters testified to on direct examination.” State v. Benevides, 420 A.2d 65, 69 (R.I.1980). “[E]vi-dence that may not be admissible in the prosecution’s case in chief may be used in rebuttal in order to counter false statements made by the accused in the course of his [or her] direct testimony.” State v. O’Dell, 576 A.2d 425, 429 (R.I.1990).