Opinion ID: 1901712
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Cross-Examination of Victor Estrada

Text: The defendant's first argument on appeal is that the trial justice erred in restricting the cross-examination of Victor Estrada by defense counsel. The defendant points to four instances in which he contends that the trial justice unduly restricted defense counsel's cross-examination of Mr. Estrada, thereby allegedly violating his constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial justice erred in restricting his cross-examination of Mr. Estrada with regard to (1) the location in the parking lot where Ms. Ash and defendant were standing at the time when Mr. Estrada observed them in an apparent argument; (2) the length of time during which Ms. Ash and defendant argued; (3) the length of time during which Mr. Estrada's view of defendant and Mr. Lima was obstructed; and (4) Mr. Estrada's characterization of how defendant's bicycle ended up on the ground. It is well settled that a trial justice's rulings as to the permissible scope and extent of cross-examination will be overturned on appeal only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion and prejudice to the moving party. See State v. Motyka, 893 A.2d 267, 280 (R.I.2006) (A trial justice's determination as to the permissible scope of cross-examination is also given deference and will be disturbed on appeal only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion and only if it constitutes prejudicial error.); State v. Jimenez, 882 A.2d 549, 552 (R.I.2005) (This Court reviews evidentiary rulings concerning the scope and extent of cross-examination only for abuse of discretion and only when the ruling has caused prejudice to the moving party.); State v. Gordon, 880 A.2d 825, 838 (R.I.2005) (A trial justice's determination as to the permissible scope of cross-examination is discretionary and will not be disturbed by this Court unless that discretion was clearly abused and constituted prejudicial error.). [5] After carefully reviewing the record in the present case, it is clear to us that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in making the challenged evidentiary rulings that placed some restrictions on defense counsel's cross-examination of Mr. Estrada. Looking one at a time at the four instances challenged by defendant, it is our opinion that the trial justice was well within his discretion in limiting the scope and extent of defense counsel's cross-examination of Mr. Estrada in each instance. The record quite clearly indicates that defendant was afforded a genuinely meaningful and broad opportunity to use the potent tool of cross-examination [6] in an effort to give the jury reasons to look askance at Mr. Estrada's direct testimony; and, in our judgment, the four above-referenced evidentiary rulings did not materially detract from the overall effectiveness of the cross-examination of Mr. Estrada. [7] It is clear to us that the trial justice restricted defense counsel's cross-examination of Mr. Estrada only to a minute extent, and we fail to perceive how any of the questioned evidentiary rulings was so clearly improper as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we hold that there was no reversible error in the trial justice's rulings limiting the cross-examination of Mr. Estrada.