Opinion ID: 2059706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: restricting cross examination

Text: Our second consideration is whether the trial justice incorrectly restricted defendant from cross-examining Mary. The defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the cross examination of Mary to preclude defense counsel from emphasizing her previous denial of abuse and adequately exposing the number of opportunities she had to report the alleged sexual assaults. Although defendant is technically correct, we conclude that any error committed by the trial court was harmless. The defendant excises several portions of the trial transcript in support of his argument. THE DEFENDANT: When your brother went to the foster home, didn't they bring you to the hospital  THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, I didn't get the last half. THE DEFENDANT: Did they not bring you to the hospital with your sister? THE STATE: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. THE DEFENDANT: [Mary], were you ever asked by anyone whether or not Mr. Ramos was abusing you? THE STATE: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I believe it goes to her credibility. THE COURT: Sustained. THE DEFENDANT: [Mary], did you ever deny that Jose Ramos abused you? THE STATE: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.    THE DEFENDANT: You took medication, is that correct? ANSWER: Yes. THE DEFENDANT: You got that from a doctor, is that correct? ANSWER: Yes. THE DEFENDANT: And did your mother take you to the doctor all the time? THE STATE: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. THE DEFENDANT: Did you ever tell your doctor that Jose Ramos was abusing you sexually? THE STATE: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Isn't the evidence here, on the state of the evidence that no one was ever told until January 1985  rather, I shouldn't say that, the first time it was disclosed was in October of 1984 or just before Christmas in 1984? THE DEFENDANT: Believe it was  THE COURT:  in Puerto Rico. THE DEFENDANT: In '84. THE COURT: Or January of '85. THE DEFENDANT: This goes to her credibility, your Honor, as to her opportunity to relate the lack of threats, et cetera. The reason why she said she didn't tell anybody. This goes directly to her credibility. THE COURT: Well  THE DEFENDANT: As to why  THE COURT: The difficulty here is there's a wide variety of questions you can ask. I think you can present that to the jury with a more restricted question. After all, she was going to school apparently. She had students. Now if there are 50 students in the classroom, are we going to go through every one of the 50 as to what she's told them? Let's find out what she's done. Can you do that with a general question? I think it's legitimate. The defendant's right to effective cross examination in criminal proceedings, State v. Canning, 541 A.2d 457, 461 (R.I. 1988), subject to the discretionary power of the trial justice to determine the proper subjects and scope of inquiry, State v. Vento, 533 A.2d 1161, 1164 (R.I. 1987), is well established and need not be reiterated here. If it is determined that the trial court erred in restricting cross examination, then we must consider whether the ruling constitutes harmless error. In determining whether the error was harmless, this court considers these factors: the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case. State v. Canning, 541 A.2d at 461 (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438, 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-87 (1986)). In the instant case, we believe that the trial justice unnecessarily restricted the scope of cross examination. Even though children generally are slow to report sexual assaults committed against them, prolonged silence of a victim, when coupled with direct denial, tends to cast doubt upon the complaining witness. See generally State v. Werner, 302 Md. 550, 563-65, 489 A.2d 1119, 1126 (1985). Although the state elicited from Mary on direct examination that she never revealed the incidents until two months after arriving in Puerto Rico because she was frightened of defendant, this testimony does not satisfy Ramos' right to cross examine on this issue. Furthermore, defendant should have been allowed to introduce evidence of Mary's insistent denial of sexual abuse to Anna V. Lewis, M.D., of the Rhode Island Hospital. Having determined that the trial court unduly restricted cross examination, we next address harmless error. The trial justice allowed extensive cross examination of the complainant, which disclosed numerous inconsistencies in her testimony and directly affected her credibility. In addition, the record reveals that the complainant's mother testified that Mary had denied being sexually abused by defendant in response to her inquiries. Moreover, the following exchange took place on cross examination: THE DEFENDANT: [Mary], did you ever tell anyone that Jose Ramos had sexually abused you prior to Christmas 1984? WITNESS: Where? THE DEFENDANT: Anywhere. WITNESS: In Puerto Rico. THE DEFENDANT: What about before Puerto Rico? WITNESS: No. We are of the opinion that the testimony restricted by the trial justice was cumulative. Consequently any error in limiting defendant's cross examination was harmless.