Opinion ID: 1484856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compulsory Process Clause Violation

Text: Finally, respondent argues that the trial justice's refusal to allow Miguel's mother and Dr. Greer to testify, denied him his fundamental right to present a defense under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution [7] and thus violated the compulsory process clause therein. This Court reviews allegations that constitutional rights have been infringed de novo. State v. Gehrke, 835 A.2d 433, 436 (R.I.2003). The respondent, however, failed to present this argument to the trial justice. This Court's raise-or-waive rule precludes our consideration of an issue that was not raised or articulated at trial. Resendes v. Brown, 966 A.2d 1249, 1254 (R.I.2009). We have recognized that an exception to the raise-or-waive rule arises when basic constitutional rights are involved; however, the alleged error must be more than harmless, and the exception must implicate an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel at the time of trial. State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50, 57 (R.I.2001). The respondent does not meet this exception. In the case at bar, the proffered evidence from Miguel's mother was unnecessary [8] and the proposed testimony from Dr. Greer was inadmissible and irrelevant; thus, we are satisfied that the trial justice's decision to preclude their testimony was not an abuse of discretion.