State v. Berroa
2010 R.I. LEXIS 102
R.I.2010Background
- An informant predicted a blue Dodge Intrepid from Massachusetts would pick up two Hispanic women at T.F. Green Airport and that cocaine would be found in the car.
- Special Agent Hickey, based on the tip, coordinated with local and federal agencies to surveil the airport and stop the vehicle as it left the short-term parking lot.
- Berroa was the driver; two women and one male passenger were in the car when stopped by airport police and DEA personnel.
- Purses in the backseat contained two cylindrical packages of cocaine, which field-tested positive for cocaine.
- No drugs or weapons were found on Berroa’s person; the state’s case relied on circumstantial inferences about possession and conspiracy, not direct evidence.
- The trial judge convicted Berroa on two possession-with-intent-to-deliver counts and one conspiracy count; the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated and remanded for acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for possession | Berroa knowingly possessed cocaine by presence in vehicle. | No direct proof of Berroa’s knowledge or control; evidence insufficient to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence insufficient; conviction vacated. |
| Conspiracy evidence sufficiency | Inferential web shows Berroa and women conspired to traffic drugs. | No agreement proven; pyramiding inferences renders proof speculative. | Conspiracy conviction vacated; no reasonable foundation for agreement. |
| Reliance on informant and inference pyramiding | Totality of circumstantial facts supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Relying on informant with inaccurate details and ancillary nervousness observations is insufficient. | Pyramiding of inferences rejected; insufficient for both counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenison, 442 A.2d 866 (R.I. 1982) (mere presence at site not enough for constructive possession)
- State v. Fortes, 110 R.I. 406 (R.I. 1972) (insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Mercado, 635 A.2d 260 (R.I. 1993) (avoid pyramiding too many inferences; inferential chain must be rational and not speculative)
- State v. Kaba, 798 A.2d 383 (R.I. 2002) (pyramiding of inferences must not be speculative)
- State v. Forand, 958 A.2d 134 (R.I. 2008) (deference to trial judge on factual findings; review for clear error)
- State v. Ros, 973 A.2d 1148 (R.I. 2009) (Pinkerton v. U.S. vicarious liability acknowledged)