Opinion ID: 2264062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: White and Lyonnais

Text: The defendant's next argument posits that the trial justice violated his right to confront witnesses White and Lyonnais, the two men who aided defendant in acquiring the murder weapon, concerning whether either witness had received a benefit in exchange for their testimony in this trial. [W]e have adopted a per se error rule in reviewing cases in which a trial justice totally precludes cross-examination by defense counsel of the state's key witness on the issues of motive or bias.    Total preclusion of this type results in constitutional error irrespective of any attempted justification by the state for the rulings of the trial justice. State v. Parillo, 480 A.2d 1349, 1357 (R.I.1984). In cases in which `the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness'[s] testimony,' we apply a harmless error analysis. State v. Hazard, 797 A.2d 448, 468 (R.I.2002) (quoting Parillo, 480 A.2d at 1358 n. 5). The trial transcript, however, demonstrates to us that defendant was not precluded in any way from probing either White or Lyonnais on issues of their respective motives and biases. Regarding White, defendant claims he was prohibited from asking whether White was charged with perjury for lies made under oath in connection with this case. Although it is true that the trial justice sustained an objection to the question during recross-examination, the trial justice allowed defendant to ask, over objection by the state, two very similar questions during cross-examination: Now, were you ever charged with perjury? and The Rhode Island authorities knew that you committed perjury and you were never charged? The trial justice's sustaining of an objection to a question on recross-examination, which already had been asked on cross-examination, was proper. [3] The defendant's argument on appeal about Lyonnais is equally unavailing. It is true that the trial justice temporarily prevented defendant from inquiring into possible drug charges pending against Lyonnais in Massachusetts. The trial justice wisely amended her ruling and allowed defendant some latitude to show the witness's motive to testify for the state in exchange for a favorable disposition of criminal charges. The trial justice did not limit defendant's subsequent cross-examination of Lyonnais on the status of those drug charges. The trial justice's amended ruling did not limit the defendant's right to cross-examine Lyonnais. [4] F