State v. Barry Offley, 131 A.3d 663

In July 2006 Barry Offley and his uncle Alonzo Shelton forced entry into Jessica Imran’s apartment; Imran was shot dead and Julie Lang severely wounded. Lang survived and identified Shelton and Offley as assailants.
Police arrested Offley and Shelton months later; Offley was tried separately and convicted on multiple counts including first‑degree murder, conspiracy, assault with intent to murder, and firearms offenses.
At trial the State read into evidence prior testimony of Carlos Alvarez (Brenda Alvarez’s son) about Offley’s drinking; defense objected that the prosecutor read the prior testimony without first attempting to refresh Carlos’s recollection under Rule 612.
Offley testified and claimed the initial discharge was accidental while he handled the gun and that Shelton then committed the shootings; he denied culpability and later fled with Shelton to Florida.
Defense moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; trial justice denied the motion after independently assessing witness credibility and evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Offley)	Held
Admissibility of prior testimony (reading transcript)	Reading prior testimony was proper impeaching evidence and harmless because any error did not prejudice Offley	Prosecutor improperly read prior testimony without first attempting to refresh witness’s present recollection under Rule 612; admission was erroneous	Majority: any Rule 612 error harmless because defense abandoned diminished‑capacity theory and testimony about intoxication was immaterial; conviction affirmed. Concurrence: properly admissible as prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A).
Motion for a new trial (weight of the evidence)	Verdict supported by credible testimony (Lang) and corroborating conduct (flight, false name)	Verdict against weight of evidence; defense testimony presented an accidental discharge and no conspiracy	Trial justice independently reviewed credibility and evidence, found defendant’s testimony not credible and jury verdict reasonable; denial of new trial affirmed.

State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008) (objections must be timely and sufficiently focused to preserve issues for appeal)
State v. Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d 12 (R.I. 2009) (preservation/raise‑or‑waive requirement; objections must identify grounds)
State v. Matthews, 88 A.3d 375 (R.I. 2014) (use of prior inconsistent statements to impeach witnesses who claim lack of memory)
State v. McManus, 990 A.2d 1229 (R.I. 2010) (prior statements admissible as impeachment/substantive evidence when witness claims convenient amnesia)
State v. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2007) (trial justice acting as thirteenth juror when ruling on new‑trial motions must assess credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Mattatall, 603 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 1992) (disbelief of defendant’s testimony can support conviction when other evidence exists)