State v. Anthony Moore, 154 A.3d 472

Background

On Feb 4, 2014, a group armed with a shotgun intended to shoot the Gomez brothers; an innocent visitor, George Holland, was killed by a shotgun blast. Authorities traced the weapon pick-up to Anthony Moore’s Woonsocket apartment where a party was occurring.
Moore was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and using a firearm when committing a crime of violence; sentences: consecutive life terms plus ten years. He appealed.
Key eyewitnesses (Ndoye and Bedame) admitted participation in the plot and entered cooperation/plea agreements with the state; both testified Moore supplied or facilitated the gun and directed participants; Lachance corroborated that Moore recruited Winston and told Winston he would be killed if he disobeyed.
The trial justice denied Moore’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial after evaluating witness credibility and emphasizing consistent testimony on the critical points tying Moore to the scheme; the justice also refused an "empty-chair" (missing-witness) jury instruction and sustained objections limiting a defense question about whether Winston had a cooperation agreement.
On appeal Moore argued (1) the trial justice erred by denying a new trial given alleged testimonial inconsistencies and incentives to lie; (2) the court should have given an empty-chair instruction concerning absent witness Winston; (3) certain evidentiary rulings curtailed his defense; and (4) cumulative error warranted reversal. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion for new trial based on weight/credibility of evidence	State: trial justice properly served as "thirteenth juror," found witnesses credible on crucial facts tying Moore to scheme	Moore: witness inconsistencies, plea incentives, substance use, and pre-custody discussion undermine credibility and require new trial	Affirmed — trial justice reasonably found inconsistencies minor and credited corroborating testimony and letter; deference to credibility findings applies
Request for empty-chair (missing-witness) jury instruction re: Winston	State: instruction unnecessary because witness was equally available to both parties; instruction disfavored and within trial judge’s discretion	Moore: instruction should be allowed even if witness available to both, and refusal violated due process by shifting burden	Affirmed — Rhode Island rule requires foundational showing; refusal within discretion and no Fourteenth Amendment violation recognized
Cross-examination question whether Winston had a cooperation agreement (sustained objection)	State: objection proper because no offer of proof and question speculative	Moore: sought to show state had access to Winston’s agreement; sustaining curtailed effective cross-examination	Affirmed — trial justice did not abuse discretion; defense failed to proffer expected answer or offer proof of relevance
Alleged hearsay testimony by Lachance and other evidentiary rulings; cumulative error	State: any individual evidentiary rulings were proper or not preserved; cumulatively not prejudicial	Moore: certain testimony should have been struck and cumulative rulings deprived fair trial	Affirmed — several objections were not preserved; no single error or combination produced prejudicial effect

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lopez, 129 A.3d 77 (R.I. 2016) (standard for new-trial motion based on weight of evidence)
State v. Fleck, 81 A.3d 1129 (R.I. 2014) (trial justice acts as thirteenth juror; three-step review)
State v. Rogers, 687 A.2d 1242 (R.I. 1996) (empty-chair instruction requires foundation that witness was available to the party expected to produce them)
State v. DiCarlo, 987 A.2d 867 (R.I. 2010) (when trial justice disagrees with jury, motion may still be denied if evidence is nearly balanced)
State v. Florez, 138 A.3d 789 (R.I. 2016) (de novo review of jury instructions; instructions must adequately cover law)
State v. Paola, 59 A.3d 99 (R.I. 2013) (deference to trial-justice credibility determinations)