Opinion ID: 2272101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Motion to Lead the Complaining Witnesses

Text: The defendant argues that the state should not have been allowed to ask Tracy leading questions because she was not an emotionally distraught witness. Mr. Rivera further contends that the trial justice's approach of considering each question on a question-by-question basis, rather than generally allowing or disallowing leading questions, was poor practice and invited error. The state counters that defendant's objection to leading questions was waived at trial because defendant did not properly raise the issue with specificity. Before trial began, the state filed a motion requesting leave to ask leading questions of the complaining witnesses, and Mr. Rivera filed an objection to the state's motion. Rather than making a broad ruling on the motion, the trial justice announced that he would consider the questions as they were presented, and only then determine whether leading questions were appropriate given the context. The trial justice, during a sidebar colloquy, stated the following: So it may be that it's permissible to lead one [witness] and maybe not [another]; but I'll take it as it comes.    If we get to that point and the [s]tate starts asking leading questions and [defendant objects], I'll make that ruling then   . But if I overrule your objection I [will] give you a continuing objection   . Although defendant does not specifically identify the questions to which he objects, we have identified the most likely exchanges from the citations given in defendant's brief. The first exchange defendant raises on appeal appears as follows: [State]: What part of his body touched your privacy? [Tracy]: His penis. [State]: Did it go inside? [Defense counsel]: Objection. The second colloquy at issue occurred as follows: [State]: Are you talking about the same place that you just told us about? [Tracy]: Well, one is in the woods? [State]: Well, I'm not talking about the woods anymore. [Defense Counsel]: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. [State]: I want to talk about the time that you were behind the church. [Defense Counsel]: Objection. THE COURT: I don't believe there was a question. A trial justice's ruling made during the examination of witnesses at trial will stand unless there has been an abuse of discretion or substantial injury to a defendant. State v. Gomez, 848 A.2d 221, 237 (R.I.2004) (quoting State v. Boillard, 789 A.2d 881, 886 (R.I.2002)). This Court gives considerable latitude to a trial justice's rulings made during examination of witnesses at trial. Id. Furthermore, we will consider the entire colloquy and the full context of the state's examination in making our determination. State v. Merced, 933 A.2d 172, 175 (R.I.2007). A leading question    suggests the desired answer. Id. Leading questions generally are not permitted on direct examination; however, a trial justice may use his or her discretion to allow leading questions for a number of limited purposes. Id. This Court has recognized the discretion of a trial justice to allow leading questions, for example, when a witness appears to be having a lapse in memory or to aid an emotionally distraught juvenile witness reluctant to relate the necessary facts. Boillard, 789 A.2d at 887. Additionally, this Court has held that a trial justice has the discretion to permit leading questions of a juvenile or other witness of diminished understanding. State v. Vanasse, 593 A.2d 58, 68 (R.I. 1991) (quoting State v. Girouard, 561 A.2d 882, 888 (R.I.1989)). In Vanasse, 593 A.2d at 68, this Court allowed leading questions to facilitate the direct examination of an eleven-year-old complaining witness because her tender age, coupled with the apparent difficulty she had in understanding questions, justified the use of leading questions on direct examination. Assuming without deciding that Did it go inside? is a leading question, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial justice. Although Tracy is not a juvenile, she has a developmental disability, and thus it was within the purview of the trial justice to permit leading questions. Moreover, the second exchange to which the defendant objected does not contain a question at all. We are thoroughly satisfied that the trial justice did not err in overruling the defendant's objections.