Opinion ID: 2264062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr James Weiner

Text: The defendant next argues that his right to cross-examination was unreasonably curtailed by the trial justice's refusal to allow him to refresh the memory of Dr. James Weiner (Dr. Weiner), a forensic pathologist who testified for the state. Doctor Weiner testified at trial that he did not see any blood on the fingernail clippings of the victim. A report prepared by someone other than Dr. Weiner indicated the possible presence of blood beneath the victim's fingernails. The trial justice refused to allow defendant to refresh Dr. Weiner's recollection with the other report. 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. State v. Presler, 731 A.2d 699, 704 (R.I.1999). Since the witness did not testify to a lack of memory about whether he saw blood beneath the victim's fingernails, defendant does not meet this modest requirement. A witness's recollection cannot be refreshed simply because that witness's testimony conflicts with some other written statement. We hold that the trial justice was well within her discretion to limit defendant's cross-examination of Dr. Weiner. C