The defendant's asserted constitutional argument having thus been addressed and acceded to by the court, and the witness having admitted the conviction, the defendant received all the protection to which he had asserted the constitution entitled him. Now the defendant contends that the trial court improperly foreclosed further inquiry of the witness beyond the fact of the conviction. No constitutional basis for this argument was advanced at trial when the situation arose. We will not consider constitutional arguments not made in the first instance in the trial court. Accordingly, we decline to reach the defendant's arguments grounded in the confrontation clause and apply an abuse of discretion standard.
Trial courts have broad discretion in determining the scope of cross-examination.
Here, the trial judge permitted the defendant, despite counsel's violation of Superior Court Rule 68, to inquire about the witness's conviction. The witness admitted she had been convicted of welfare fraud, a crime that on its face conveys her dishonesty. In her testimony, she described the defendant's offense as one committed deliberately, not accidentally as the defendant contends. According to the defendant, the witness's purported misrepresentation of her conviction opened the door to further inquiry. He also asserts that the trial court refused to allow him to make an offer of proof and failed to engage in a balancing of probative worth and prejudice.