Opinion ID: 2383678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Testimony about Enemies of His Wife Capable of Murder

Text: The defendant assigned error to the trial justice's ruling that prevented defendant from testifying about whether his wife had enemies capable of murdering her. During redirect examination of defendant the following exchange took place: Counsel: [The prosecutor] asked you about you being out of the home when someone must have come in and killed your wife, do you remember that? Defendant: Yes. Counsel: Do you know whether or not Margaret had any enemies that might have been capable of that? Prosecution: Objection. It calls for speculation and also  Court: Sustained. Counsel: He asked you about your telephone calls to Bobby Coogan, do [you] remember that? We observe as a preliminary matter that defendant did not preserve for appeal the question of whether he should have been allowed to testify about enemies of his wife capable of murdering her. It is a well-settled principle of appellate law that a claim of error, although briefed and argued at the appellate level, is deemed waived if not effectively raised at trial. State v. Rivera, 640 A.2d 524, 526-27 (R.I. 1994); State v. Toole, 640 A.2d at 972-73; State v. Burke, 529 A.2d 621, 627 (R.I. 1987). Upon the state's objection to the question and the court's sustaining the objection, defense counsel simply moved on with an unrelated line of questioning. He made no offer of proof, nor did he articulate any rationale for allowing defendant to respond to the question, nor did he attempt to rephrase the question. Consequently, we need not reach the merits of defendant's claim. In the event this issue had been preserved for review by this court, however, we would affirm the trial justice's ruling. The trial justice found, as an evidentiary matter, that the question asked defendant by defense counsel was improper, and he sustained the state's objection that the question called for speculation on defendant's part. Matters of relevancy and admissibility are left to the sound discretion of trial courts. State v. Cardoza, 649 A.2d 745, 749 (R.I. 1994). We shall not disturb a trial justice's decision on an evidentiary issue unless that decision constitutes an abuse of the justice's discretion that prejudices the complaining party. Id.; State v. Germano, 559 A.2d 1031, 1036 (R.I. 1989). The trial justice did not err in refusing to permit defendant to testify about enemies of his wife capable of murdering her because the question by defense counsel called for speculation by defendant in respect to the states of mind of these hypothetical enemies. [1] See R.I.R.Evid. 701.