Rocco D'Alessio v. State of Rhode Island, 101 A.3d 1270

In January 2000, infant Gianna D’Alessio was found unresponsive and later died; Rocco D’Alessio, who had been caring for the child that evening, was tried and convicted of second-degree murder in April 2002.
State medical examiner Dr. Elizabeth Laposata testified at trial that Gianna’s death was caused by violent shaking (Shaken Baby Syndrome) and was a homicide; she had consulted an outside neuropathologist prior to trial.
In 2007 D’Alessio sought postconviction relief on the ground of newly discovered evidence, offering testimony from Dr. Richard T. Callery, who had reviewed the original autopsy file in 2000 while working for the Office of State Medical Examiners (OSME).
Dr. Callery testified he could not, based on the incomplete file he reviewed, conclude the death was homicide or shaken-baby; he described the manner of death as between homicide and undetermined and acknowledged the file lacked later neuropathology reports.
The Superior Court found Dr. Callery’s testimony newly discovered but not material (would not have altered the verdict), described it as lacking substantial weight/credibility, and denied relief; D’Alessio appealed.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Callery’s testimony was not of the type likely to create a reasonable probability of a different result and declining to reach the trial court’s credibility findings on that testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether newly discovered evidence (Dr. Callery’s testimony) requires vacatur/new trial	Callery’s opinion that he could not conclude homicide shows the medical evidence at trial was not conclusive and would likely change the verdict	Evidence was vague, based on an incomplete file, and would not create reasonable probability of different result given Laposata’s compelling testimony	Denied — Callery’s testimony not material; would not likely change verdict
Whether the hearing justice erred in sua sponte addressing ineffective assistance of counsel	D’Alessio contends the court improperly raised and ruled on ineffective-assistance though no party asserted it	State notes court’s comment but emphasizes primary ruling was on newly discovered evidence	Court agrees it was improper for trial judge to address the issue sua sponte and declines to review it on appeal
Whether nondisclosure of Callery’s involvement violated Brady (due process)	D’Alessio asserts OSME/State failure to disclose Callery’s review was favorable, material evidence (Brady violation)	State argues Brady was not raised below, not properly presented, and that prosecutors did not have the information; also contends the claim is waived	Waived — Brady not properly raised below and no applicable exception; Court declines to consider the claim

Bleau v. Wall, 808 A.2d 637 (R.I. 2002) (defines materiality standard for newly discovered evidence)
Powers v. State, 734 A.2d 508 (R.I. 1999) (standard for motions based on newly discovered evidence)
Brennan v. Vose, 764 A.2d 168 (R.I. 2001) (newly discovered-evidence standard applied in postconviction context)
McMaugh v. State, 612 A.2d 725 (R.I. 1992) (procedural standard for new-evidence review)
Fontaine v. State, 602 A.2d 521 (R.I. 1992) (two-prong inquiry: materiality then credibility)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (Brady standard: verdict confidence and prosecutor’s duty to learn of favorable evidence)
State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2004) (distinguishing cumulative vs. noncumulative evidence)
State v. D’Alessio, 848 A.2d 1118 (R.I. 2004) (prior opinion reciting trial facts)
State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008) (raise-or-waive rule for issues not presented to trial court)
State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305 (R.I. 2008) (narrow exception to raise-or-waive requiring novel constitutional rule)