Opinion ID: 1935215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the cross-examination of detective ronald pennington

Text: The defendant next asserts that his right to cross-examine Woonsocket Detective Ronald Pennington (Pennington) was abridged when the trial justice refused to allow counsel to inquire into Laferte's identification of her possible assailant. This restriction is alleged to be in violation of the Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendments. During direct examination, Laferte testified that she had no recollection of ever having identified any assailant. Apparently as a result of the assault, her ability to recall events, even subsequent to the attack, had substantially deteriorated. However, during her hospitalization Sergeant Donald Gosselin (Gosselin) of the Woonsocket police department had presented her with a list of names in an effort to determine who had beaten her. One such name to which Laferte nodded affirmatively was that of a man named Donald Dagesse, who defendant asserted was the perpetrator of the attack. Another, however, was Donald Duck. This information was eventually relayed to Pennington via Gosselin, and an attempt was made to elicit it by means of defense counsel's cross-examination of Pennington. However, the trial justice restricted defense counsel's cross-examination, reasoning that Detective Gosselin is going to have to come in.    [Laferte] said I don't even know that it took place. So now the only one who can adequately testify with any degree of reliability as to whether it did or did not take place is Gosselin. The defendant subsequently called Gosselin. who described questioning Laferte in the hospital. It is well established that a trial justice has wide discretion in limiting cross-examination. State v. Lamoureux, 623 A.2d 9, 14 (R.I. 1993). We shall not review this exercise of discretion except for clear abuse, and then only when such abuse constitutes prejudicial error. State v. Anthony, 422 A.2d 921, 924 (R.I. 1980). Clear abuse occurs when a defendant is prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination in violation of his right to confront a witness. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 684 (1986); U.S. Const. Amend. VI; R.I. Const. art. 1, § 10. We are persuaded that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in violation of defendant's right to confrontation when he restricted defense counsel's cross-examination of Pennington. Pennington testified that he had no firsthand knowledge of Laferte's identifications. Any knowledge he possessed was passed on to him through Gosselin. Under Rule 602 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, a witness clearly may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. This requirement was not met in the present case. State v. Rice, 633 A.2d 253, 254 (R.I. 1993). Therefore, we hold that the trial justice did not commit an abuse of discretion amounting to prejudicial error by so limiting defendant's cross-examination. Anthony, 422 A.2d at 924.