## Facts

- Robert O’Brien was tried for the death of an infant, Sean Shanahan, who had been left in his care; the timing of the child’s symptoms was central to the defense.
- The infant’s mother, Carol Shanahan, testified on direct that she did not see the child from morning until early evening on the day of death, and that the child then had only a runny nose.
- In a police statement given five days after the death, Shanahan reported checking the child in the afternoon and described more severe symptoms (including wheezing, gasping, and hoarseness).
- On cross-examination, defense counsel confronted Shanahan with the inconsistency; she said she could not recall making those statements to police.
- On redirect, the prosecutor elicited that Shanahan was extremely upset when she gave the police statement because she had just buried her son, to explain the inconsistency.
- Defense counsel sought recross to question Shanahan about a later statement made in trial preparation that allegedly matched the earlier police statement and supported the defense theory; the later statement was not introduced in evidence.
- The judge refused recross on that topic as beyond the scope of redirect, and O’Brien was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge abused discretion, or violated confrontation rights, by denying recross-examination of a key witness about a later prior statement not covered on redirect.
2. Whether limiting recross in these circumstances deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the judge did not abuse discretion by barring recross on a separate, later statement because it was outside the scope of redirect.
- The court held the restriction did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights because the defense had an adequate opportunity to challenge the witness’s credibility through cross-examination.
- The court found no showing of prejudice warranting reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Recross-examination is not automatic; a trial judge may limit recross to matters opened on redirect and may exclude attempts to introduce new subjects.
- The Confrontation Clause requires a meaningful opportunity to test credibility, not unlimited questioning; reasonable limits are permitted when the jury has sufficient basis to evaluate reliability.
- Appellate review of limits on examination is for abuse of discretion, and reversal requires a showing that the limitation likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a trial judge’s refusal to allow recross about a separate prior statement not raised on redirect, concluding that the limitation was within evidentiary discretion and did not infringe confrontation rights where the defense had already exposed the key inconsistency through cross-examination.


Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 419 Mass. 470, 645 N.E.2d 1170 (1995)