Opinion ID: 1938373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the cross-examination of karen porter

Text: The trial justice sustained the objection to a question posed by defense counsel to Karen Porter. The question was posed in the following context: Q. And then what did you see Roger do, hit her in the head with the baseball bat? A. Yeah. Q. And it's possible he could have been defending himself? Mr. DeCubellis: Objection. The Court: Sustained. In light of our discussion of the doctrine of self-defense as it would be applicable to an aggressor, this subject does not require extended analysis. Even if the doctrine of self-defense was properly applicable to defendant, the question certainly called for a mixed conclusion of fact and law on the part of the witness that she was utterly unqualified to give. The ultimate issue of self-defense is not a subject upon which a lay witness is permitted to expound. The witness was carefully examined concerning the facts and circumstances that she observed. It was then the task of the jury to determine whether defendant's actions were justified under principles of self-defense in accordance with the trial justice's instructions. We have already concluded that those instructions were highly favorable to defendant. The subject of inquiry to this witness Karen Porter was wholly inappropriate, regardless of what her testimony before the grand jury may have been. The trial justice committed no error in exercising his discretion to exclude this improper question.