More information

edge of their marital problems in nearly Identical qu on the subject was therefore unnecessary, Third, Avalos argues that he was prevented from probing the relationship between Natasha and Diane. The trial record reflects otherwise. Defense counsel was able to explore the relationship sufficiently, As Avalos concedes, Natasha teall- fied that her relationship with Diane "wasn't perfect." She also agreed that she sometimes "thought Diane was rude and crude and negative," and conceded that sometimes she "wanted to be free as a bird, and not have Diane around her." Defense counsel was also permitted to ask Diane whether, in the diary, Natasha called Diane "rude," "crude," and "hateful." Finally, Avalos argues that the judge erred in preventing defense counsel from establishing that boy friends of Diane might have had the opportunity to commit the crimes. He is incorrect. At the hearing on the motion in limine, the judge never excluded evidence of Diane's boy friends. During trial, the judge repeatedly allowed testimony that a boy friend of Diane lived with her and Natasha. Object tions were sustained only when Avalos testified that Diane and Natasha later Inved "with another boyfriend," and when defense counsel asked, "Was that the same person who had been living with Diane previously or a different person?" This was not an abuse of discretion. In sum. Avalos had ample opportunity to cross-examine Natasha and Diane for the purpose of laying the groundwork for his argument that Diane was angry. and that Natasha named Avalos to diffuse that anger. Defense counsel was pre- vented from asking only whether Diane ever struck Natasha and which other diary writings had angered Diane. Each of these questions would have created a trial-within-a-trial on collateral issues, Excluding those lines of inquiry was not an abuse of the judge's discretion. Conclusion. Avalos was granted adequate license to cross-examine Common wealth witnesses as to their bias and to present evidence supporting his defense. The judge's rulings were well within her discretion and did not infringe on Avalos's rights under the Sixth Amendment and art. 12. We affirm the convictions. So ordered