State v. Alston
2012 R.I. LEXIS 94
R.I.2012Background
- Alston was convicted at a 2008 trial of conspiracy to break and enter, breaking and entering of a dwelling, and assault with a dangerous weapon; sentences consecutive.
- His earlier 2003 conviction for the same offenses was vacated on appeal and remanded for a new trial; second trial proceeded in 2008 on three charges.
- The Lavens’ burglary occurred July 3–4, 2001; victims described two Black men, one with a knife, fleeing with keys; no positive identification of defendant at trial.
- Detective and civilian witnesses linked the abandoned vehicle, rental car, and defendant’s fingerprints to the crime scene; a co-conspirator, Coleman, was alleged to have aided in the burglary.
- Harrell testified about conversations with defendant and Coleman, including statements by Coleman and statements attributed to defendant; some statements were challenged as hearsay/admissions.
- Defendant appealed alleging confrontation/hearsay errors, improper cross-examination limits of Smith, and that the court should have passed the case after inflammatory remarks by Harrell; the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation rights and admissibility of Coleman statements | Harrell’s testimony admitted Coleman’s statements as adoptive/coconspirator admissions | Coleman’s statements were hearsay and violated confrontation | No error; statements admitted under 801(d)(2)(B) and not testimonial; Bruton issue unavailing |
| Cross-examination of Smith restricted | Cross-exam could be relevant to police conclusions | Restriction prevented relevant proof | No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to offer an adequate proffer of evidence |
| Motion to pass the case after inflammatory remark | Harrell’s remark prejudicial and inflammatory | Should have granted a pass or mistrial | No clear error; cautionary instruction and striking the remark sufficed; jury could follow instructions |
| Admissibility of Harrell’s testimony about defendant’s statements | Harrell’s testimony showed defendant’s own statements | Testimony blurred who was declarant; reliability concerns | Admissible; sufficient indicia of reliability; statements not testimonial and properly admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeJesus, 947 A.2d 873 (R.I. 2008) (Confrontation Clause standard and testimonial statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Foundational Confrontation Clause principles for testimonial statements)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (Co-defendant confession in joint trial and Bruton problem)
- Gomez, 848 A.2d 221 (R.I. 2004) (Deference to trial court rulings; admissibility of adoptive admissions)
- Lerner, 112 R.I. 62, 308 A.2d 324 (R.I. 1973) (Five-factor test for admissibility of statements heard by accused)
- Rhode Island Managed Eye Care, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 996 A.2d 684 (R.I. 2010) (Trial court discretion on hearsay exception)
- State v. Goulet, 21 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2011) (Narrow exception to raise-or-waive rule; constitutional dimension)
- State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008) (Raise-or-waive rule; novel legal rule exception)
- State v. Parente, 460 A.2d 430 (R.I. 1983) (Harmless error and test for prejudice)
- State v. Patel, 949 A.2d 401 (R.I. 2008) (Reaffirmation of cautionary instructions sufficiency)
- State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (Right to cross-examination)
- State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1232 (R.I. 2010) (Weight given to motion to pass; prejudicial statements)