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 fell outside the scope of the preceding examination. It nevertheless held that the trial court improperly excluded material testimony from the defendant about his daughter's behavioral problems, his difficulty managing them, and the urgency and nature of the treatment appointment, and that the error substantially affected the parental-justification defense. The judgment was reversed and a new trial was ordered. Justice Kahn, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Mullins, concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that the testimony was properly excluded or, alternatively, that any error was harmless.