Opinion ID: 2112726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The question of whether or not defense counsel was entitled to make an opening statement prior to the introduction of evidence by the state is a question of law, and thus is reviewable de novo by this Court. See Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Bowen Court Associates, 763 A.2d 1005, 1007 (R.I.2001) (Questions of law and statutory interpretation    are reviewed de novo by this Court.). By contrast, the determination of whether or not to strike the testimony of a witness pursuant to Rule 602 for lack of personal knowledge is left to the sound discretion of the trial justice and will only be overturned if there was a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Momplaisir, 815 A.2d 65, 72 (R.I.2003) (The admissibility of evidence is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial justice and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.); State v. Spratt, 742 A.2d 1194, 1199 (R.I.1999) (On review, we shall not disturb the trial court's Rule 602 determination unless it is clear that the court has abused its broad discretion.). In State v. Nhek, 687 A.2d 81, 82-83 (R.I.1997), we noted that [a] Rule 602 personal-knowledge determination is a judgment call for the trial court that is best made with the aid of firsthand observation of the witness. Similarly, the decision of whether or not to pass a case and declare a mistrial is also a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial justice, and that decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear error. State v. Suero, 721 A.2d 426, 429 (R.I.1998); see also State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084, 1091 (R.I.1996) ([T]he determination of the trial justice concerning a ruling on a motion to pass a case and to declare a mistrial will be given great weight, and we will not disturb that determination unless it is clearly wrong.). We have observed that [t]he rationale behind investing the trial justice with such extensive powers is that he or she possesses `a front row seat at the trial and can best determine the effect of the improvident remarks upon the jury.' State v. Tempest, 651 A.2d 1198, 1207 (R.I.1995).