State v. Leconte

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions arising from three armed robberies. It held that any assumed constitutional error in admitting statements about two robberies while the defendant was represented by counsel in another case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence concerning the third robbery was overwhelming. It also held that the restrictions on cross-examination gave the defendant an adequate opportunity to challenge the cooperating witness's credibility and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.