8 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. DeBarrosgreen2 sentences2009Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt “that the defendant would have been convicted without [Skwirz’s] testimony, or * * * that the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness’ testimony * * Texter, 594 A.2d at 378 (quoting DeBarros, 441 A.2d at 552 ). 2009Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt "that the defendant would have been convicted without [Skwirz's] testimony, or * * * that the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness' testimony * * *." Texter, 594 A.2d at 378 (quoting DeBarros, 441 A.2d at 552 ). | 2 | 5 |
Springer v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984Only if we believe that the effect of such restriction was harmless to a defendant will we not find a constitutional violation. ‘"To hold harmless such error in curtailing constitutionally-protected cross-examination, it must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt "(1) that the defendant would have been convicted without the witness' testimony, or (2) that the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness' testimony.’” Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d at 856 .” State v. DeBarros, 441 A.2d at 552 . 1982This test was stated as applicable to cross-examination as follows: “To hold harmless such error in curtailing constitutionally-protected cross-examination, it must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt ‘(1) that the defendant would have been convicted without the witness’ testimony, or (2) that the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness’ testimony.’ ” Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d at 856 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Hazardgreen1 sentence2005“In cases in which ‘the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witnesses] testimony,’ we apply a harmless error analysis.” State v. Hazard, 797 A.2d 448, 468 (R.I.2002) (quoting Parillo, 480 A.2d at 1358 n. 5). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Texter
green
2 sentences2009Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt “that the defendant would have been convicted without [Skwirz’s] testimony, or * * * that the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness’ testimony * * Texter, 594 A.2d at 378 (quoting DeBarros, 441 A.2d at 552 ). 2009Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt "that the defendant would have been convicted without [Skwirz's] testimony, or * * * that the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness' testimony * * *." Texter, 594 A.2d at 378 (quoting DeBarros, 441 A.2d at 552 ). | 2 | 1996–2009 |
State v. Parillo
green
1 sentence2005“In cases in which ‘the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witnesses] testimony,’ we apply a harmless error analysis.” State v. Hazard, 797 A.2d 448, 468 (R.I.2002) (quoting Parillo, 480 A.2d at 1358 n. 5). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Freeman
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 1358 n. 5 (quoting Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 856 (D.C.App.1978) and State v. DeBarros, 441 A.2d 549, 552 (R.I.1982)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.