Opinion ID: 2683743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-Examination of the Victims’ Mother

Text: [¶12] Criminal defendants have the “right to conduct reasonable or otherwise appropriate cross-examination to expose facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to a witness’s reliability.” State v. Mills, 2006 ME 134, ¶ 9, 910 A.2d 1053 (quotation marks omitted). Defendants do not, however, have “free [rein] to present testimony without the restraints imposed by the rules of evidence.” Id. We review rulings on the relevance of evidence for clear error. State v. Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 24, 58 A.3d 1032. [¶13] The court permitted Logan to elicit testimony that the victims’ mother was more vigilant than most people in terms of the people she allowed her children to be around, and that she did not allow her children to have contact with their grandfather. The court also allowed Logan to elicit testimony suggesting that the mother’s presence at police interviews had influenced the girls’ statements. The court did not err in determining that the specific reason for the mother’s “hypervigilan[ce]”—i.e., that she herself had been sexually abused—was not relevant. See M.R. Evid. 401, 402; Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 24, 58 A.3d 1032. In any event, there was no prejudice to Logan because the mother’s history was later 7 alluded to in Logan’s interview with the police, and Logan made no attempt to further explore that issue after the interview was played for the jury. See U.C.D.R.P.–Cumberland County 52(a) (“Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”); M.R. Crim. P. 52(a) (same).