Opinion ID: 2065805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limited Cross-Examination of State's Witness

Text: The defendant next argues that the trial justice violated his constitutional right to confrontation when he limited his cross-examination of Ms. Dumont. To promote his sole defense at trial, defendant elicited testimony from Mrs. Andrews on cross-examination that Jack and Ms. Dumont shared a tumultuous relationship, characterized by Ms. Dumont's violent temper that occasionally erupted into physical abuse. According to Mrs. Andrews, just before he disappeared Jack had told his wife he was afraid of Ms. Dumont. During Ms. Dumont's cross-examination, however, she resisted defendant's attempts to depict her as an aggressor, instead insisting that she only hit Jack in self-defense. In an attempt to impeach Ms. Dumont's characterization of the relationship, defendant sought to confront her with Mrs. Andrews's previous testimony: Q: If I told you that Jack's wife testified in this case already and said that Jack told her that you used to beat on him and that he was beginning to get afraid of you  [State]: Objection. The Court: Sustained. After hearing arguments at side bar, the trial justice ruled that defendant's question was impermissible because it invited Ms. Dumont to comment on the credibility of Mrs. Andrews's testimony. [12] 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. Stansell, 909 A.2d 505, 509 (R.I.2006). This right to cross-examination, however, is not unbounded. Id. at 510; State v. Oliveira, 730 A.2d 20, 24 (R.I.1999). As we have held previously, trial justices are accorded wide discretion to curtail cross-examination after there has been `sufficient cross-examination to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.' Stansell, 909 A.2d at 510 (quoting Oliveira, 730 A.2d at 24). Therefore, [a] trial justice's decision to limit the scope of cross-examination is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion; the decision will be overruled `only if such abuse constitutes prejudicial error.' Id. (quoting Oliveira, 730 A.2d at 24). Irrelevant questions and lines of questioning that offer to produce no probative evidence need not be permitted by the trial justice and may be properly limited. State v. Gasparico, 694 A.2d 1204, 1208 (R.I.1997). Furthermore, it is well settled that a witness is not permitted to offer an opinion concerning the truthfulness of the testimony of another witness. State v. Higham, 865 A.2d 1040, 1045 (R.I.2004) (quoting State v. Haslam, 663 A.2d 902, 905 (R.I.1995)). At the heart of this rule lies the venerable principle that [t]he determination of the truthfulness or credibility of a witness lies within the exclusive province of the jury. Id. Even when a witness does not literally state an opinion concerning the credibility of another witness but his or her testimony would have the same `substantive import,' such testimony is inadmissible. Id. [A]s a general rule, [such] questions have no probative value and are improper and argumentative because they do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226, 237 (2002) (quoting State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 518 (Minn.1999)). In the instant case, defendant's question would not have assisted the fact-finder in any way and, therefore, was irrelevant. Had the query been permitted, undoubtedly it would have provoked Ms. Dumont to comment impermissibly on the truthfulness of Mrs. Andrews's trial testimony. Therefore, to permit a response from Ms. Dumont would have invited her to opine impermissibly as to Mrs. Andrews's credibility, a function that is reserved exclusively for the jury. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion by discontinuing defendant's cross-examination on this particular point.