Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant was involved in a fatal shooting that followed a drug transaction in Providence, Rhode Island, on April 22, 2021. He was a longtime drug dealer and, on the night in question, sold cocaine to a woman with her boyfriend (the decedent) present. During and after the transaction, the decedent became agitated, shouting threats at both the defendant and the woman. The confrontation escalated when the decedent approached the defendant’s car, yelled additional threats, and appeared to hold an object the defendant believed to be a firearm. The defendant then shot the decedent in the chest, fled the scene, and later disposed of evidence.The case was tried in the Providence County Superior Court. Before trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to two firearm-related charges that were not presented to the jury. At trial, he asserted self-defense and requested that the jury be instructed on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, arguing that the evidence supported a finding that he acted in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation. The trial justice denied this request, finding the defendant’s demeanor and testimony showed he was calm and not provoked to the extent required by law. The jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The trial justice imposed consecutive life sentences and additional terms for the firearm charges.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. It held that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the facts did not support finding adequate provocation or sudden heat of passion. The court further declined to consider the defendant’s argument regarding the excessiveness of his sentence because he failed to seek sentence revision under Rule 35 in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "State v. Xaykosy" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Nazaski Carrasco-Smith and Devin Delacruz, were shot while sitting in a vehicle in Providence, Rhode Island, on December 4, 2020. Carrasco-Smith survived; Delacruz did not. The investigation led police to a rented Nissan Altima and uncovered connections between the defendant, his girlfriend, and others through surveillance footage, GPS tracking, and extensive cell phone data analysis. Police also discovered a GPS tracker on Carrasco-Smith’s vehicle and recovered incriminating text messages between the defendant and his girlfriend, some of which contained accusations related to the murder.After a grand jury indictment, the case proceeded to trial in the Providence County Superior Court. The state presented forensic and digital evidence as well as expert testimony on local gang rivalries, suggesting a motive. During the trial, the prosecution introduced text messages from the defendant’s girlfriend accusing him of involvement in the murder. The defendant moved to exclude these messages, arguing they were hearsay and unfairly prejudicial. The trial justice denied the motion, admitted the messages, and issued cautionary instructions to the jury. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, including first-degree murder and multiple firearm offenses. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and was sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional concurrent sentences.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. It held that the trial justice abused her discretion by admitting the girlfriend’s accusatory text messages, finding that their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect under Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. The court determined that the cautionary instructions given did not cure the prejudice and that the error was not harmless in light of the prosecution’s emphasis on the messages. The court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Chandler" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with several drug-related offenses in two separate incidents, each involving multiple codefendants. The same attorney, David A. Cooper, entered his appearance to represent the defendant in both matters. During bail hearings in the Rhode Island Superior Court, the trial justice expressed concern about a potential conflict of interest because Attorney Cooper had previously represented one of the codefendants in a related matter. The trial justice questioned both the attorney and the defendant about this issue, and the defendant indicated that she understood the situation and wanted to continue with her chosen counsel, expressing her willingness to waive any potential conflict.Despite the defendant’s statements, the Superior Court trial justice removed Attorney Cooper as counsel, citing a “strong potential for conflict,” even though there was no actual conflict at the time. The court’s order was based on the attorney’s prior representation of a codefendant and the possibility that interests might diverge in the future, and a written waiver from the codefendant was obtained, while the defendant’s waiver was made orally in open court.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the matter on writs of certiorari. The Supreme Court concluded that, although trial courts have discretion to remove counsel when there is an actual or serious potential conflict of interest, such a removal must be supported by a substantial showing that the likelihood and dimensions of the feared conflict are significant. The Supreme Court held that, in this case, the record did not support a sufficient showing of a substantial potential conflict to justify overriding the defendant’s chosen counsel at that time. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the Superior Court’s orders removing Attorney Cooper as counsel and remanded the case. View "Viera v. State" on Justia Law

A defendant was charged with multiple counts of child molestation sexual assault involving his biological daughter, referred to as Maria, who was fourteen years old at trial. The alleged incidents took place when Maria was around eleven and occurred during visits with her father, including one on a bus and another at her paternal grandmother’s residence. Maria did not immediately report the assaults due to fear and concern for her father but eventually disclosed them to a friend, a program instructor, and ultimately to medical professionals. At Hasbro Children’s Hospital and its Aubin Child Protection Center, Maria was evaluated physically and mentally, and she recounted the assaults to Dr. Barron, a specialist in child-abuse pediatrics.In the Providence County Superior Court, two counts were dismissed—one by the prosecution and one by the trial justice following a motion for acquittal. The jury found the defendant not guilty on one count and guilty on another, resulting in a life sentence. The defense’s pretrial motions sought to exclude Dr. Barron’s testimony, arguing that Maria’s statements to her were not made for medical diagnosis or treatment but for evidence collection. The trial justice allowed the testimony, finding it related to Maria’s diagnosis and treatment, especially given her mental health concerns and risk of self-harm.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether challenged hearsay statements made by Maria to Dr. Barron were properly admitted under Rule 803(4) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. The Court held that, except for one preserved objection, the defendant had waived the hearsay objections by failing to renew them at trial. The Court further concluded that the admitted statement was pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment and, even if it were not, its admission was harmless as it was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Cable" on Justia Law

In the early morning of December 14, 2008, after a nightclub event in Providence, Rhode Island, gunfire broke out as patrons were leaving, resulting in the fatal shooting of Anthony Parrish. Two eyewitnesses, Shamair Barboza and Nakia Green, identified Dana Gallop as the shooter. Barboza had known Gallop since childhood, while Green identified him from a lineup eight days after the incident. Gallop was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and related crimes, receiving multiple consecutive sentences.After his conviction was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Gallop filed a pro se application for postconviction relief in the Rhode Island Superior Court, later supplemented by counsel. He argued, among other things, that the state failed to disclose that both eyewitnesses were participating in the state’s witness protection program (WPP) and had received financial assistance, which he claimed constituted violations of Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland. The Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing, hearing testimony from Gallop’s trial counsel and the prosecutor. The judge found the prosecutor’s recollection credible, concluding that the state had disclosed both witnesses’ participation in the WPP and that there was no evidence of undisclosed inducements or material nondisclosure.On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the denial of Gallop’s application for postconviction relief. The Court held that Gallop’s objection to the handling of his summary disposition motion was waived because he did not raise it at the time. It further found that the state had disclosed the witnesses’ WPP involvement, and that there was no rule or order requiring disclosure of specific WPP expenditure amounts. The Court also held that any nondisclosure of WPP expenditures was not material under Brady, as Gallop failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The judgment denying postconviction relief was affirmed. View "Gallop v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

In March 2022, police officers in Providence responded to concerns about Sherbert Maddox, who had not been heard from in several days. Her uncle, Marvin Maddox, reported to officers that he had been told Sherbert was killed and her body was in a refrigerator in her boyfriend’s apartment. Officers went to the apartment complex, spoke with residents, and focused on Apartment 6, where Sherbert’s boyfriend, later identified as the defendant, lived. After repeated knocking and observing someone inside who did not answer the door, officers forcibly entered the apartment without a warrant. Inside, they found the defendant, two firearms, and Sherbert Maddox’s body in a refrigerator.A grand jury indicted the defendant on nine counts, including murder and firearm offenses. Before trial in the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless entry, arguing it violated his constitutional rights. After a hearing, the trial justice denied the motion, finding exigent circumstances justified the entry. At trial, several counts were dismissed, and the jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and related firearm charges. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional concurrent sentences. The defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case, applying a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and conducting an independent review of the constitutional issues. The Court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search, given the urgent need to check on Sherbert Maddox’s well-being and the information available to police at the time. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, upholding the convictions and the denial of the suppression motion. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A father was charged with multiple counts of child molestation sexual assault involving his biological daughter, Anne, who was between the ages of three and eight during the alleged incidents. The charges included two counts of first-degree child molestation (fellatio) and two counts of second-degree child molestation (penis to vagina). The alleged acts occurred in the family home in Rhode Island, and Anne testified to both charged and uncharged incidents of sexual misconduct by the defendant, including acts that took place during family trips outside Rhode Island. Anne disclosed the abuse to her stepsister, Christine, and later to other family members, which led to a report to child protective services and a subsequent investigation.The case was tried before a jury in the Rhode Island Superior Court. The jury found the defendant guilty on one count of first-degree child molestation sexual assault (fellatio in the bathroom) and acquitted him on the remaining three counts. The trial justice admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior uncharged sexual misconduct with Anne and with Anne’s mother, Elaine, under Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, finding the acts sufficiently similar and nonremote to the charged conduct. The court also admitted prior consistent statements made by Anne to family members, allowed travel records into evidence, and excused a prospective juror for cause due to COVID-19 concerns.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed five issues raised by the defendant. The Court held that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence, finding it relevant, necessary, and not unfairly prejudicial. The Court also found no error in the admission of prior consistent statements, the travel records, or the excusal of the juror. The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case to the Superior Court. View "State v. Montero" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon, drive-by shooting, and conspiracy to commit a drive-by shooting. The incident occurred on September 12, 2020, when the defendant and a group of friends encountered another group, leading to a shooting that injured three individuals. The defendant was identified as the driver of the vehicle from which the shots were fired. The police investigation led to the arrest of the defendant and the recovery of the firearm used in the shooting.In the Superior Court, the defendant was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms for the assault and conspiracy charges, with additional sentences for the drive-by shooting and conspiracy to commit a drive-by shooting. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in several ways, including not admitting a witness's juvenile record, improperly admitting hearsay evidence, denying his motion for a new trial, and denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decisions. The court found that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in excluding the juvenile record, as the defendant did not sufficiently alert the trial justice to the specific rule of evidence he was relying on. The court also determined that the hearsay statement about a "blinky" was properly admitted to show its effect on the listener, not for the truth of the matter asserted.The court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, concluding that the trial justice had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, made credibility determinations, and found the testimonies of key witnesses credible. The court also upheld the denial of the motion for a judgment of acquittal, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court. View "State v. Peckham" on Justia Law

A man was indicted for first-degree sexual assault based on an incident that occurred in July 1999, in which the complaining witness testified that the defendant, whom she had known for less than two weeks and considered only a platonic friend, visited her home unannounced and forcibly raped her. The witness described her resistance and the emotional and psychological trauma she suffered afterward. DNA evidence collected at the time of the incident was later matched to the defendant. The prosecution also presented testimony from medical and forensic experts, as well as corroborating testimony from the witness’s friend, who received a distressed call from her shortly after the event.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Providence County Superior Court in 2022, nearly twenty-three years after the alleged assault. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the trial justice denied his motion for a new trial. The defendant was sentenced to thirty-five years, with twelve years to serve and the remainder suspended with probation. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of consent, by not giving a spoliation instruction regarding missing physical evidence (the jeans the witness wore), and by issuing an Allen charge to the deadlocked jury rather than declaring a mistrial.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that the trial justice’s instructions on force and coercion were adequate and that a separate consent instruction was unnecessary because there was no evidence of consent. The Court also found no error in refusing a spoliation instruction, as there was no evidence of bad faith or exculpatory value in the missing jeans. Finally, the Court concluded that the Allen charge given to the jury was fair, neutral, and not coercive under the circumstances. View "State v. Threadgill" on Justia Law

The defendant and the victim were involved in a fatal shooting that occurred outside the home of the defendant’s former partner, with whom he shared a child. After the end of their romantic relationship, the former partner began seeing the victim. On the night in question, the victim arrived at the former partner’s house, and after an encounter between the defendant and his former partner, the defendant fired multiple gunshots into the victim’s car, resulting in the victim’s death. The defendant was subsequently indicted on multiple charges, including murder and several related offenses. Additional charges were brought based on the defendant’s conduct while incarcerated awaiting trial. The two cases were consolidated and tried together.In the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant was tried before a jury. The trial justice included an instruction on voluntary manslaughter over the state’s objection, but instructed the jury to consider voluntary manslaughter only if it found the state had not proven first- or second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant objected, arguing that the jury should be allowed to consider whether adequate provocation negated malice even if the elements of murder were otherwise satisfied, and that the state should be required to disprove provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and several other charges, and not guilty on others. The defendant was sentenced accordingly and appealed.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. The court held that the trial justice’s instructions were proper, finding that the instructions, when viewed in their entirety, adequately explained the law and did not mislead the jury. The court concluded that the state’s burden of proof was not improperly shifted to the defendant and that the instructions did not violate due process. The judgments of conviction were affirmed. View "State v. Mangru" on Justia Law