Opinion ID: 2264062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confrontation Clause Issues

Text: The defendant frames several of his claims of error as unconstitutional limitations on his right to cross-examine various witnesses. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution unquestionably grant a criminal defendant the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him at trial. E.g., State v. Oliveira, 774 A.2d 893, 921 (R.I. 2001). That right is the primary means by which a criminal defendant may challenge the veracity of a witness's testimony. Id. This right, however, is far from absolute; a defendant has only `reasonable latitude' to inquire into the bias, motive or prejudice on the part of a witness. State v. Werner, 831 A.2d 183, 209 (R.I.2003) (quoting State v. Hazard, 745 A.2d 748, 756 (R.I.2000)). A trial justice may foreclose a proposed line of questioning if it is not relevant to the trial issue, or if the proposed questioning, even if relevant, is outweighed by any of the reasons prescribed in Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. State v. Oliveira, 730 A.2d 20, 24 (R.I.1999). [A] trial justice is given wide discretion to permit or limit counsel's cross-examination of witnesses during trial, and that discretion, absent a showing of clear abuse, will not be disturbed on appeal, and then, only if such abuse constitutes prejudicial error. Id. A