State v. Mark T.

Summary

The court held that the trial court acted within its discretion in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of the state's eyewitness because the proposed question was outside the scope of the preceding examination. It further held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the defendant's testimony about his daughter's behavioral problems, his efforts to obtain treatment, and the urgency of the appointment, and that the error substantially affected his parental justification defense. The judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered. Judge Kahn, joined by the Chief Judge and Judge Mullins, concurred in part as to the cross-examination ruling but would have affirmed because the excluded testimony was minimally probative, implicated privacy interests, and was not shown to be harmful.