Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Victor Arciliares

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided January 26, 2015No. 2013-124-C.APublished

1ConcurrenceJustice Goldberg

I concur in the majority’s decision in this case. I write separately, however, in order to reiterate this Court’s concern as expressed in previous opinions about the potential for reversible error when the state seeks to exclude defense witnesses or limit evidence sought to be introduced by criminal defendants. Whether in the context of motions in limine or unrecorded conferences in chambers, when defendants are precluded from calling witnesses in order to introduce probative and relevant defense evidence, the likelihood of reversible error is manifest. It is, after all, the defendant’s trial.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. TempestSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1995
  2. State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2009
  3. State v. BrownSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1998
  4. State v. HaslamSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1995
  5. State v. AndujarSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2006

4 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