Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Riggs

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 21, 1996No. 1 CA-CR 94-0970Published

1DissentKleinschmidt, Judge

I respectfully dissent because I believe that limiting cross-examination of the victim regarding his refusal to grant a pretrial interview violated the defendant’s right to confrontation under the United States and Arizona Constitutions.

The right to cross-examine a witness is a vital part of confrontation. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1109-10, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). However, cross-examination may be restricted based on concerns for harassment, prejudice, or marginal relevance. Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 149, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 1746, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991); State v.…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API