Opinion ID: 2189569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Relevance of the Testimony of General Magistrate O'Brien

Text: According to defendant, General Magistrate O'Brien's testimony on the deputy sheriff's inability to work was both prejudicial and irrelevant to any of the charges against defendant. Moreover, defendant asserts that General Magistrate O'Brien's testimony on contempt amounted to an opinion about defendant's guilt on the charges of assaulting and of obstructing public officials. Although the testimony at issue was certainly prejudicial, [a]ll of the evidence that tends to prove that defendant is guilty of a crime might be said to be prejudicial. State v. Lemon, 497 A.2d 713, 720 (R.I.1985). Here, [b]odily injury sustained in the performance of duty is an essential element in proving assault on a public official. State v. Pombo, 110 R.I. 133, 136, 290 A.2d 855, 856 (1972). Therefore, the fact that the deputy sheriff was unable to work for two years after the assault is highly probative of the fact that he did suffer bodily injuries from the assault. As such, the probative value of General Magistrate O'Brien's testimony on this point is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, Rule 403, and did not require exclusion of such evidence.