Criminal Cases TABLE OF CONTENTS

Transcription

1 Criminal Cases TABLE OF CONTENTS Rhode Island Supreme Court Term State v. Kimberly Fry, 130 A.3d 812 (R.I. 2016)...1. State v. Gary Gaudreau, 139 A.3d 433 (R.I. 2016)..3. State v. Jonathan Martinez, 139 A.3d 550 (R.I. 2016)...5. State v. Anthony Parrillo, No M.P., 2017 WL (R.I. May 3, 2017)..6. State v. Juan Soler, 140 A.3d 755 (R.I. 2016) 7.

2 CRIMINAL CASE SUMMARIES RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT State v. Kimberly Fry, 130 A.3d 812 (R.I. 2016) The defendant, Kimberly Fry, appealed from a judgment of conviction after being found guilty by a jury of second degree murder of her eight-year-old daughter, Camden Fry. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial justice erred in: (1) declining to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter due to diminished capacity and inadequately instructing the jury on accident; (2) permitting the state to elicit testimony from a witness through improper impeachment and leading questions; (3) failing to declare a mistrial following the state s violation of the court s sequestration order; and (4) allowing admission of a video depicting the scene of the murder, including the victim s body. The Supreme Court held that the defendant waived any argument with regard to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter due to diminished capacity by failing to raise a timely objection before the jury retired to deliberate. The Court further held that the accident instruction provided by the trial justice was adequate. In addition, the Court held that the defendant s argument regarding improper impeachment was not properly preserved for appeal. The Court also held that the defendant failed to object to all but one of the leading questions to which she assigned error on appeal, and the trial justice did not err in permitting the state s attorney to ask yes-or-no questions during the direct examination of its own witness. Additionally, the Court held that the trial justice s sequestration order was not violated and, in any event, the remedial measure taken by the trial justice was sufficient to prevent any prejudice. Finally, the Court held that the admission of the video depicting the victim s body was - 1 -

3 appropriate under Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence and, therefore, was properly admitted. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Superior Court s judgment of conviction

4 State v. Gary Gaudreau, 139 A.3d 433 (R.I. 2016) The defendant, Gary Gaudreau, appealed from a judgment of conviction on one count of first-degree arson in violation of G.L The state alleged that the defendant was responsible for intentionally setting fire to his place of business, Physique Gym, during a severe snow storm in the middle of the night on March 2, On the night of the fire, the defendant called the police to report a breaking and entering at his home, claiming that someone had stolen a fanny pack containing his keys, wallet and handgun, while he was driving in Massachusetts due to sleeplessness. Unsurprisingly, the defendant quickly became the primary suspect of the arson. At trial, the state had no direct evidence linking the defendant to any accelerants used to set the fire, but it had an eyewitness, a snow plow driver, who claimed to have seen the defendant at the gym around 2 a.m. with his car pulled up to the building and the trunk open. The eyewitness contacted police later that morning, after learning that the gym had burned down, and police used his signed statement in an interrogation with the defendant, in an attempt to get the defendant to confess. However, the defendant did not confess and he objected to the admission of the videotaped interrogation at trial. The defendant raised two issues on appeal: (1) he challenged the admission into evidence of a video recording of his custodial police interrogation; and (2) he challenged the denial of his motion for new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Court had never before addressed the issue of admitting an interrogation, where the defendant neither confessed nor made inculpatory statements, that was objected to on relevance and prejudicial grounds, rather than challenging the statements as being involuntary. The Court determined that when a defendant objects to the admissibility of an interrogation that does not contain a confession, the Superior Court should review the admissibility as it would for any other - 3 -

5 evidence. The Court held that the trial justice committed error when he failed to conduct the balancing test under Rule 403 of the Superior Court Rules of Evidence. However, to the extent that he committed error in denying defendant s motion to suppress, it was harmless. Although there was very little probative value to the entire video, and the statements by the police officers challenging the defendant s veracity were prejudicial, the interrogation was short, with minimal threatening or coercive conduct by the police, and the tape was far more prejudicial to the defendant because of the eyewitness statement of the snow plow driver, and the defendant s own explanation of his activities during a snow storm. The Court expounded that trial justices in the future should be very cautious in permitting the jury to hear comments from police officers in videotaped interrogations that would not be permitted from the witness stand, and should consider redacting those police statements that are particularly prejudicial and do not produce relevant responses from the defendant. Furthermore, the Court held that where the trial justice determines that the videotaped interrogation is relevant, a defendant challenging such evidence is entitled to a cautionary instruction to the jury. The Court affirmed the trial justice s denial of the defendant s motion for a new trial because the trial justice properly reviewed the evidence, weighed the credibility of the witnesses, and made plain that she did not disagree with the jury s verdict. Specifically, the trial justice acted well within her discretion when she determined that the defendant s testimony on his behalf was unbelievable and perjurious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction

6 State v. Jonathan Martinez, 139 A.3d 550 (R.I. 2016) A jury convicted the defendant, Jonathan Martinez, of one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, one count of possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and one count of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Of the many arguments raised by the defendant on appeal, only one was preserved at trial for review by the Supreme Court: the defendant s contention that the trial justice erred in not permitting him to present an opening statement to the jury. After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court concluded that, since defense counsel indicated that he intended to elicit evidence from the state s witnesses on crossexamination, the trial justice erred by denying the defendant the opportunity to make an opening statement without probing further as to what affirmative evidence the defendant reasonably expected to elicit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court

7 State v. Anthony Parrillo, No M.P., 2017 WL (R.I. May 3, 2017) The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review a Superior Court order denying the state s request to adjudge Anthony Parrillo a probation violator. The hearing justice s decision to deny the state s request was based upon his finding that Parrillo was no longer on probation in 2011, the time that he allegedly committed the offense of felony assault. The Supreme Court held that any credit that Parrillo received on his thirty-year sentence (as a result of time served and/or good behavior) did not actually reduce his sentence; instead, it reduced the time that he would spend incarcerated. The Supreme Court held that Parrillo s thirty-year sentence in 1986 meant that he was on probation until 2016, and was subject to being adjudged a violator in The Supreme Court also entertained Parrillo s argument that, even if he was deemed to be on probation in 2011, the state should have been barred from adjudging him a probation violator based on the principles of equitable estoppel because the state, through the Department of Corrections, informed Parrillo in a 2009 letter that his probation had terminated at that time. Although the Supreme Court rejected this argument primarily because Parrillo failed to establish the requisite elements to warrant such relief the Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for a determination of whether the state should be barred based on principles of due process. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the order of the Superior Court and remanded the case thereto

8 State v. Juan Soler, 140 A.3d 755 (R.I. 2016) The defendant, Juan Soler, appealed from a Superior Court judgment convicting him of assault with a dangerous weapon and vandalism. The defendant argued that the trial justice had erred by refusing to include a self-defense instruction in the jury charge because there was sufficient evidence introduced during the trial to support his self-defense theory. After carefully reviewing all of the testimony at trial, the Supreme Court held that the defendant had presented sufficient evidence, albeit slight and tenuous, to warrant a self-defense jury instruction. The Supreme Court concluded that the lack of a self-defense instruction within the jury charge entitled the defendant to a new trial on the charge of assault with a dangerous weapon. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the defendant s conviction for felony assault and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings