State v. Rosario, 14 A.3d 206

Rosario was convicted by a Providence County jury of assault with a dangerous weapon (a motor vehicle) following a trial in December 2007.
The charge arose from an incident involving Officer John Reposa on February 22, 2006, after a prior May 2003 hospital interaction about a broken cell phone.
Rosario moved in limine to preclude evidence of prior altercations or threats to police; the State sought to elicit related testimony.
The trial court limited evidence from the hospital incident and related threats, and allowed some Internal Affairs and Inspector Colon communications, subject to conditions.
During trial, the prosecutor and defense counsel argued over use of the term altercation and the propriety of impeaching Rosario with otherwise inadmissible evidence; the court reserved rulings on further disclosure.
Rosario appealed, challenging (i) the denial of his first motion to pass based on the opening statement, and (ii) the denial of his second motion to pass tied to cross-examination about generalized threats to police.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the use of the word altercation in opening violated the pretrial ruling.	State.	Rosario.	No reversible error; context and instructions undermined prejudice.
Whether the State impermissibly manufactured an impeachment issue with otherwise inadmissible evidence.	State.	Rosario.	No reversible error; door opened by Rosario's broad answer; rebuttal testimony proper.

State v. Grant, 946 A.2d 818 (R.I. 2008) (deference to trial court on motions to pass; appellate review deferential)
State v. Mendoza, 889 A.2d 153 (R.I. 2005) (standards for evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion review)
State v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190 (R.I. 2005) (evidentiary discretion; prejudice balancing)
State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008) (strength of trial court’s ruling on motions to pass)
State v. Moreno, 996 A.2d 673 (R.I. 2010) (admissibility and abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008) (admissibility; corroborating evidence; discretion)
State v. Pitts, 990 A.2d 185 (R.I. 2010) (evidentiary rulings and prejudice considerations)
State v. Hoyle, 122 R.I. 45, 404 A.2d 69 (R.I. 1979) (principles for extraneous prejudicial evidence; motion to pass)
State v. Marrapese, 116 R.I. 1, 351 A.2d 95 (R.I. 1976) (pretrial rulings and prejudice)
State v. LaPlante, 962 A.2d 63 (R.I. 2009) (prejudice assessment in trial context)
State v. Pacheco, 763 A.2d 971 (R.I. 2001) (prejudice; extraneous evidence impact)
State v. Toole, 640 A.2d 965 (R.I. 1994) (prejudice from inflammatory references)
State v. O'Dell, 576 A.2d 425 (R.I. 1990) (impeachment limits; no undisclosed rebuttal evidence)
State v. McDowell, 620 A.2d 94 (R.I. 1993) (rebuttal evidence; improper impeachment)
Forand v. City of Providence, 958 A.2d 134 (R.I. 2008) (discovery and impeachment context)