Opinion ID: 2264062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Shepard

Text: The defendant next argues that the trial justice committed error during defendant's cross-examination of Shepard, an attendant at a Tiverton gas station who testified that defendant visited his gas station on the night of the murder. In the course of the cross-examination of Shepard, defendant used the witness's previous statements to prove that his memory had been inconsistent about whether the man he saw on the night of the murder was wearing eyeglasses. The defendant continued to press Shepard to explain that inconsistency: Defendant's counsel: But you think you told someone that [the man was wearing eyeglasses] because that's what you just said? Shepard: Yes. Defendant's counsel: Who do you think you told that to? Shepard: Possibly myself. Defendant's counsel: Do you talk to yourself a lot? Mr. White: Objection. The Court: Sustained. Defendant's counsel: Well, how many times do you talk to yourself? Mr. White: Objection. The Court: Sustained. The defendant claims that the trial justice committed reversible error when she sustained the state's objections. A trial justice may limit the cross-examination of a witness when that cross-examination border[s] on harassment. Hazard, 745 A.2d at 756; see also State v. Wiley, 676 A.2d 321, 324 (R.I.1996) (holding that the trial justice is afforded this discretionary latitude so that he or she may limit cross-examination on the basis of concerns of witness harassment). The defendant's final two questions undoubtedly sought to place an exclamation point on a successful challenge of the credibility of Shepard by embarrassing him with his answer that he might have told himself that the person he saw the night of the murder was wearing eyeglasses. The defendant's ability to discredit the witness's identification of defendant was not compromised because he was unable to elicit testimony concerning the frequency with which the witness spoke to himself. That bell had been rung. The trial justice's limitation of defendant's cross-examination was proper. E