Background

• On Jan. 14, 2017, Jamie Ewing called 9-1-1 after a domestic dispute; officers observed red marks on her neck and a clump of hair on the laundry-room floor. Roy Ewing was charged with one count of domestic violence and a temporary protection order was issued on Jan. 15, 2017.
• Three days after the TPO, Roy was charged with violating it for emailing Jamie. A few days after his removal, Jamie allegedly broke into Roy’s safe and took money and firearms; the facts of that incident were disputed.
• At pretrial and before the April 7, 2017 jury trial, Roy moved to cross-examine Jamie about the alleged ‘‘safecracking’’ to show she had motive to fabricate the domestic-violence allegations to secure assets during divorce preparations.
• The trial court denied permission to pursue cross-examination about the safe incident, reasoning the disputed facts would confuse or mislead the jury; Roy was allowed to ask Jamie whether she intended to divorce him before the incident.
• The jury convicted Roy of domestic violence. On appeal Roy argued the denial of cross-examination into the safe incident violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• The Twelfth District affirmed, holding the excluded cross-examination was collateral, of limited probative value, and its admission risked jury confusion and undue delay.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause allows wide but not unlimited cross‑examination; trial court may impose reasonable limits to avoid harassment, prejudice, confusion)