Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Peterson

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided November 23, 1998No. 96-330-C.APublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGoldberg, Justice

I am in full agreement with respect to the Court’s opinion on the limitation that was placed on cross-examination. Regarding the Court’s interpretation of G.L.1956 § 12 — 19— 21, Rhode Island’s habitual-criminal statute, however, I respectfully dissent. The critical facts to this issue are not in dispute.

In the early morning hours of March 18, 1993, defendant Bradley C. Peterson (Peterson) stepped in front of a slow-moving truck being driven by Joseph Kaiser (Kaiser). After Peterson apparently feigned injury, as discussed in the majority’s recitation of the facts, a struggle ensued between…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. DiCiccoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1998
  2. State v. BryantSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1996
  3. State v. HumphreySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1998
  4. State v. LaRocheSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1996
  5. State v. CaliseSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1984

3 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