221 A.3d 359
R.I.2019Background
- Defendant Alberto Rivera was tried and convicted by a Providence County jury on multiple counts arising from a December 4, 2016 shooting (assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling, burglary, related firearm offenses); heavy, partially consecutive sentences followed.
- Three eyewitnesses linked Rivera to the shooting: the victim Juan Croussette, Rivera’s ex‑wife Brenda Villanueva, and Rivera’s daughter Mary. Their testimony tied Rivera to the entry and shooting.
- The prosecution introduced an ATF confidential‑informant telephone recording and a written transcript; portions of the transcript contained Spanish that was translated by an Attorney General office bilingual employee, and the transcript identified Rivera by name though the audio did not.
- Defense objected to the recording/transcript on grounds including one‑party consent/warrant issues, authentication, and translator credentials; the trial justice admitted the audio and transcript, instructing the jury that the audio controls and the transcript is only an aid.
- During trial defense learned he had not picked up all discovery materials from the AG’s office (one of two manila envelopes). After an evidentiary hearing the trial justice found nondisclosure inadvertent, no prejudice to the defense, denied a mistrial and denied a new trial.
- On appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed: many evidentiary objections were waived for failure to preserve, and the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the transcript or denying mistrial/new trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Rivera's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility—whether confidential informant consented to recording (one‑party consent/warrant) | Recording was consensual; CI consented; one‑party consent applies | Recording required warrant because CI was acting as government agent; one‑party rule inapplicable | Waived on appeal (defense failed to preserve specific challenge); no reversible error upheld |
| Admissibility—authentication of audio and transcript | Agent Jardin authenticated the audio and testified transcript was fair and accurate; audio controls | Transcript not properly authenticated; translator credentials inadequate | Authentication objection waived on appeal; trial justice didn’t abuse discretion admitting transcript |
| Transcript accuracy and naming defendant | Transcript was complete after Spanish translation; jury instructed audio controls; eyewitnesses identified Rivera’s voice | Transcript included Rivera’s name though audio didn’t identify speaker, risking factual resolution by the prosecuion | Trial justice acted within discretion; cautionary instructions obviated prejudice; admission upheld |
| Mistrial / new trial for alleged Rule 16 discovery violation | Nondisclosure was inadvertent; defense had core statements and materials; no prejudice; continuance/recall offered | Defense lacked significant discovery materials before trial, prejudicing preparation and warranting mistrial/new trial | Trial justice didn’t abuse discretion: nondisclosure inadvertent, no prejudice shown, mistrial and new‑trial denials affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Romero, 193 A.3d 1167 (R.I. 2018) (preservation/raise‑or‑waive rule for appellate review of evidentiary objections)
- State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981) (standards for admitting transcripts of recordings; accuracy and jury instruction that audio controls)
- State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735 (R.I. 2005) (trial justice’s discretion in admitting transcripts)
- State v. Rosado, 139 A.3d 419 (R.I. 2016) (four‑factor test for addressing discovery nondisclosure under Rule 16)
- State v. Fry, 130 A.3d 812 (R.I. 2016) (deference to trial justice on mistrial decisions; reversal only for clear abuse of discretion)