State v. Mark T.

Summary

The court held that the trial court properly limited the defendant’s cross-examination of the state’s eyewitness because the proposed question was outside the scope of the preceding examination. It nevertheless held that the trial court improperly restricted the defendant’s testimony about his daughter’s behavioral problems, his efforts to obtain treatment, and the urgency of the appointment, because that evidence was material to both components of his parental-justification defense. The error was harmful because the excluded evidence substantially impaired the jury’s ability to assess whether the defendant’s use of force was subjectively and objectively justified, so the conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered. Kahn, J., joined by Robinson, C. J., and Mullins, J., concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing on the cross-examination issue but disputing the ruling that the excluded testimony was harmful.