Opinion ID: 2081910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Detective Corley's Testimony on Redirect Examination

Text: Oliveira contends that the trial justice committed reversible error in permitting Det. Corley to testify that he relied on information other than Green's description in selecting Oliveira's picture for the photo array. During direct examination, Det. Corley testified that he used the description Green gave him to prepare the photo array containing a photograph of Oliveira. On cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to emphasize the paucity of information that Green actually provided, specifically that the suspect was a Spanish male with sideburns down to his chin, a small mustache, and short, flat hair. His questions further suggested that the facial hair features could be altered. On redirect examination, the state asked Det. Corley simply, please, yes or no, did you rely on anything other than the description given to you by Horace Green when you selected [] Oliveira's picture for that photopack, yes or no? Defense counsel's objections were overruled, and Det. Corley replied [y]es. Defense counsel then moved to pass the case, which the trial justice denied. Oliveira contends that this testimony was irrelevant and inflammatory and its admission constitutes reversible error. Oliveira asserts that the testimony was not relevant to any issue that the jury had to resolve, which was whether the array itself or the identification procedure was suggestive. Moreover, Oliveira contends that, even if relevant, the probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, because it invited the jury to speculate as to what the extrinsic evidence may have consisted of. The state counters that the permitted testimony was within the proper scope of the state's redirect and was relevant to rehabilitating the credibility of the photo array that Oliveira had attempted to discredit on cross-examination. We agree. [A] determination of relevancy made by a trial justice will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Mora, 618 A.2d 1275, 1280 (R.I.1993). Such rulings will not be disturbed on review, `absent a clear abuse of discretion that results in prejudice to the defendant.' State v. Oliveira, 774 A.2d 893, 921 (R.I.2001) (quoting State v. Tassone, 749 A.2d 1112, 1117 (R.I. 2000)). A trial justice's ruling on a motion to pass a case, or a motion for a mistrial, is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial justice is clearly wrong. State v. Luciano, 739 A.2d 222, 228 (R.I.1999). The trial justice `has a front-row seat at the trial' and is in the best position to determine whether a defendant has been unfairly prejudiced. Id. (quoting State v. Gomes, 690 A.2d 310, 317 (R.I.1997)). In considering a motion for a mistrial, the trial justice must determine whether the evidence would cause the jurors to be so inflamed as to make them unable to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented. State v. Mastracchio, 672 A.2d 438, 444 (R.I.1996). It is our opinion that Det. Corley's testimony was relevant to correct the misleading impression created by Oliveira's questioning of Det. Corley, which indicated that he had relied solely on Green's physical description of Oliveira to assemble the photo array. Oliveira's questioning opened the door to this issue in such a fashion as to invite the prosecutor's response. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion in allowing the state to question Det. Corley, in a very limited manner, to correct the inaccurate impression created by Oliveira's line of questioning. Similarly, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Oliveira's motion to pass the case. Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides that [a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Although there exists no precise formula for determining the prejudicial effect of a statement, we `evaluate its probable effect upon the outcome of the case by examining the remark in its factual context and determining whether this remark reasonably tended to increase' the probability of an issue of fact or law that is of consequence to the outcome of the case. State v. Dyer, 813 A.2d 71, 74 (R.I.2003) (quoting State v. Ortiz, 609 A.2d 921, 929 (R.I. 1992)). In this situation, the probative value of Det. Corley's testimony is made evident by the fact that its admission resolved the potentially misleading line of questioning that Oliveira initiated. The challenged testimony on this same subject did not so prejudice defendant as to warrant a mistrial. The trial justice limited the redirect examination on this subject to a yes or no question, and prohibited the state from eliciting the other information Det. Corley relied on in selecting Oliveira's photo. The trial justice's handling of this issue was reasonably calculated to correct the misleading impression created by Oliveira's questioning, while also limiting any prejudice to Oliveira.