State v. Yara Chum, 54 A.3d 455

Chum was convicted of two felony assault with a dangerous weapon counts and one discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence; sentences were concurrent ten-year terms for the assaults and a consecutive ten-year term for the firearm, with five years to serve and five suspended.
The genesis of the case was a drug deal dispute where a marijuana sale was robbed and retaliation ensued against the informally involved parties at 83 Chestnut Avenue and 33 Peach Avenue in Cranston/Providence.
Defendant was identified by witnesses on the porch of 33 Peach Avenue and later arrested by patrol officers after a red Acura associated with the suspects was linked to the shooting.
Defendant gave a verbal statement to Providence police after Miranda warnings were administered; the statement related to the shooting but was not introduced at trial.
A pretrial motion to suppress challenged the legality of the arrest and the Miranda-derived statements; the motion was denied, and opening statements referenced the statement though it was not admitted as evidence.
On appeal, defendant argued (1) suppression of the statement as tainted by an unlawful arrest under Wong Sun and (2) cross-examination restrictions violated confrontation rights; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the suppression issue preserved and properly decided	Chum argues the arrest was unlawful and the statement tainted under Wong Sun.	Chum contends the taint from unlawful arrest should have suppressed the statement.	Issue not properly before court; statement not admitted; suppression denied on waiver grounds.
Did the trial court improperly restrict cross-examination of police witnesses about the statement	Chum contends cross-examination of Bucci and Otrando was necessary to attack the statement.	Cross-examination should be broader to reveal voluntariness and inconsistencies.	No reversible error; limits were within discretion and statements were not admissible hearsay; conviction affirmed.

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (taint from unlawful arrest not admissible unless attenuated; however, not applied here as statement not admitted)
State v. Huy, 960 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2008) (exclusionary rule deterrence when evidence not introduced at trial)
State v. Tevay, 707 A.2d 700 (R.I. 1998) (statements of counsel are not evidence; opening statement promises must be addressed by other remedies)
State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (jury presumed to follow trial court’s cautionary instructions)
State v. Lynch, 19 A.3d 51 (R.I. 2011) (credibility and limits of cross-examination; respect for trial judge’s rulings)
State v. Hazard, 785 A.2d 1111 (R.I. 2001) (preservation requirements for cross-examination rulings; offer of proof needed)
State v. Harnois, 638 A.2d 532 (R.I. 1994) (defendant may not elicit out-of-court statements through police witnesses when not testifying)
State v. Tassone, 749 A.2d 1112 (R.I. 2000) (Humane Practice Rule outlines limits on admissibility of certain statements)