Opinion ID: 2065805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refresh Recollection

Text: The defendant finally argues that the trial justice abused his discretion by refusing to permit defendant to refresh Ms. Dumont's recollection. When cross-examining Ms. Dumont, defendant sought to elicit from her a concession that she had used a thirdand, to that point, unidentifiedalias: Angela Wilkinson. [13] Ms. Dumont denied using this alias. Apparently, defendant's goal was to impeach her with yet another prior conviction; however, the District Court complaint charging the offense listed Bobbie-Jo Dumont a/k/a Angela Wilkinson as the alleged perpetrator. When defendant failed to coax Ms. Dumont into admitting using the alias, he then attempted to refresh her recollection with the District Court complaint. The state objected, arguing, inter alia, that because Ms. Dumont never indicated she needed her recollection refreshed, defendant could not furnish the document. The trial justice resolved the issue as follows: What I'll do    is allow [defendant] to lay a foundation for the use of this document. Ask Ms. Dumont if providing her with a document will refresh her recollection. If she says `yes' or `it may,' then I'll permit you to show her the document. If she says that it would not, then you will not use the document. Upon resuming cross-examination, the following colloquy transpired: [Defendant]: So, Ms. Dumont, if I showed you a document, a court record, a court paper, which charges you with assaulting a person named Thomas Robinson, assault with a dangerous weapon on September twenty-ninth of 2002, and the name of the defendant was Bobbie-Jo Dumont a/k/a Angela Wilkinson, would that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you were charged with this crime? [Ms. Dumont]: No, it wouldn't. Further attempts to force Ms. Dumont to concede proved futile. The defendant's entire argument on this point is that because any document can be used to refresh a witness's present recollection, the trial justice committed error by not permitting defendant to do so using the District Court complaint. [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. State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735, 745 (R.I.2005) (quoting Oliveira, 730 A.2d at 24). The only foundational requirement for refreshing a witness's recollection is that the witness clearly must be `unable to remember something of relevance to the matter being litigated.' Id. at 746 (quoting State v. Presler, 731 A.2d 699, 704 (R.I.1999)). However, [a] witness's recollection cannot be refreshed simply because that witness's testimony conflicts with some other written statement. Id. at 746-47. Contrary to defendant's contention in the present case, he was not denied the opportunity to refresh Ms. Dumont's recollection with the District Court complaint because the document was improper, but because, as the record confirms, Ms. Dumont said that the District Court complaint would not refresh her recollection. The trial justice committed no error.