Opinion ID: 1995858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Standard of Review as to the Read-Back Issue

Text: The decision as to whether or not to read back to the jury a particular witness's trial testimony in response to a jury request is confided to the sound discretion of the trial justice. State v. Dumas, 835 A.2d 438, 443 (R.I.2003); see also State v. Ros, 973 A.2d 1148, 1176 (R.I.2009); State v. Pierce, 689 A.2d 1030, 1035 (R.I. 1997); State v. Dame, 488 A.2d 418, 422 (R.I.1985). In response to such a request, the trial justice should generally permit the read-back, especially when it is practically possible to do so without consuming an inordinate amount of time and without misleading the jury. Dumas, 835 A.2d at 443; see also Ros, 973 A.2d at 1176; State v. Haigh, 666 A.2d 803, 804 (R.I.1995). A read-back must be fair and impartial, and it must not invade the province of the jury in deciding the case. Pierce, 689 A.2d at 1035; see also Ros, 973 A.2d at 1176. In reviewing a trial justice's decision as to whether or not to permit testimony to be read back to the jury, we employ an abuse of discretion standard. Ros, 973 A.2d at 1176; Dumas, 835 A.2d at 445. C