State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158

Tracey Barros was convicted after a jury trial in Superior Court of conspiracies and weapons/murder-related offenses arising from the April 27, 2005 shooting of Deivy Felipe.
Barros was arrested December 29–30, 2005 for possession of a pistol without a license and later confessed to Felipe’s murder during custodial interrogations.
Only a partial 12-minute recording of Barros’s custodial confession exists; earlier statements were not recorded.
A suppression motion challenging the confession’s voluntariness and the recording issue was denied after a two-day hearing; a second suppression hearing occurred before the second trial, which also denied relief.
Barros was ultimately convicted on all counts: murder, conspiracy to commit murder, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, and carrying a firearm without a license, and received consecutive life terms plus related sentences.
Barros appealed asserting (i) denial of suppression of the confession and (ii) preclusion of cross-examination regarding third-party-perpetrator evidence; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recording and due process	No full recording violated due process	Custodial interrogations must be recorded in full; absence taints voluntariness	No constitutional recording right; no mandatory admonition required
Judicial supervision and recording rule	Court should promulgate recording requirement	Court should adopt a mandatory recording rule	Court declined to exercise supervisory power to mandate recording
Cautionary jury instruction regarding unrecorded statements	Absent full recording, jury should be cautioned	Jury should be instructed (as in DiGiambattista) to weigh unrecorded statements cautiously	No mandatory DiGiambattista-style instruction required
Voluntariness of the confession	Statements were voluntary and valid	Statements were involuntary due to interrogation conditions	Confession found voluntary; no suppression warranted
Prompt presentment (Rule 5(a))	Delay in presentment could render confession involuntary	Delay caused coercion	Delay not operative in inducing confession; no suppression
Third-party-perpetrator evidence	Evidence barred; not admissible	Should be allowed to test credibility via cross-examination	Trial court did not err in excluding; defense offer of proof was insufficiently specific

State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008) (two-step voluntariness standard; clear and convincing waiver required)
State v. Taoussi, 973 A.2d 1142 (R.I. 2009) (two-step analysis for voluntariness; totality of circumstances)
State v. Dennis, 893 A.2d 250 (R.I. 2006) (Humane Practice Rule on voluntariness review)
State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265 (R.I. 1998) (handcuffing not per se involuntary; factors in voluntariness)
State v. Robinson, 989 A.2d 965 (R.I. 2010) (handcuffing and custodial interrogation considerations)
State v. King, 996 A.2d 613 (R.I. 2010) (delay in presentment and applicability of Rule 5(a))
State v. Nardolillo, 698 A.2d 195 (R.I. 1997) (Rule 5(a) delay must be operative in inducing confession)
State v. Ferola, 518 A.2d 1339 (R.I. 1986) (delay in presentment considerations in voluntariness)
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423, 813 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 2004) (Mass. instruction favoring recording; cautionary guidance)
State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537, 4 A.3d 1176 (Conn. 2010) (state due process recording not required)