the third person’s opportunity to commit the crime and a proximate connection between that person and the actual commission of the crime.’ ” State v. Brennan, 526 A.2d 483, 488 (R.I.1987) (quoting State v. Gazerro, 420 A.2d 816, 825 (R.I.1980)) (emphasis added). In Brennan, 526 A.2d at 488, the defendant failed to make an offer of proof or introduce any evidence suggesting that a third party committed the murder for which defendant was accused. This Court held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial justice to preclude defense counsel’s cross-examination about a third party. Id. In this case, as in Brennan, defendant has provided no evidence that a third party may have entered Theresa’s apartment on the night in question. See State v. Gomes, 881 A.2d 97, 112 (R.I.2005) (<HOLDING>); Gazerro, 420 A.2d at 825 (holding that it was
holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony holding that defense counsels offer of proof was inadequate and that it was proper for the trial justice to preclude admission of contested evidence holding that admission of evidence in violation of confrontation clause was harmless because it did not relate to the contested issue before jury