State v. Riggs
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.