State v. Blake Covington
69 A.3d 855
R.I.2013Background
- On Sept. 29–30, 2010 a fight occurred in Pawtucket; afterward a separate confrontation ended when shots were fired, leaving Claudio Nieves paralyzed. Blake Covington was identified as the shooter.
- Eyewitnesses Yamirca Arias and Nieves both identified Covington at trial; Arias initially used another name and gave inconsistent pretrial statements. Nieves made an on-scene remark to police: “Tell my father that I love him.”
- Covington was charged with multiple counts including felony assault and using a firearm while committing a crime of violence; several counts were later dismissed and Covington was convicted on remaining counts and sentenced to an aggregate term with 50 years to serve.
- Pretrial and trial disputes centered on (1) admissibility of Nieves’s statement to police under R.I. Evid. Rules 401/403; and (2) limits placed on defense attempts to present a third-party perpetrator theory implicating Jerry Jones (and alleged influence on Arias).
- Defense presented limited proof (investigator and a witness, Delon) that Jones was angry earlier; court excluded certain testimony as speculative or hearsay and struck answers that impermissibly opined on another’s inner thoughts.
- The trial justice denied Covington’s motion for a new trial after independently assessing credibility and the weight of evidence; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Nieves’s on-scene statement (“Tell my father that I love him”) | State: statement relevant to show Nieves knew he was seriously injured and thus that a person was injured by a firearm discharge | Covington: statement is nonprobative and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Admitted; Court held statement was relevant to the injury element and probative value outweighed any prejudice |
| Limits on presenting third‑party perpetrator evidence (motive/opportunity/demeanor) | State: defense offers were speculative and risked jury speculation and collateral issues | Covington: exclusion of testimony and questioning prevented him from presenting a full third‑party‑perpetrator defense implicating Jones | Court: trial justice allowed limited evidence (Jones was angry) but properly excluded speculative, opinion, or hearsay-based inferences; no abuse of discretion |
| Exclusion of Det. LaForest cross‑examination re: Jones’s out‑of‑court statement (to show influence on Arias) | State: cross would invite speculation and constitute hearsay; prior inconsistencies were already exposed elsewhere | Covington: wanted to show Arias’s testimony was influenced; not offered for truth but for source similarity | Exclusion upheld; even if error, any error harmless because jury heard related impeachment and defense highlighted it in closing |
| Motion for new trial (weight of evidence / evidentiary errors) | State: jury verdict supported by credible testimony of Nieves and Arias; trial justice independently weighed credibility | Covington: testimony conflicts (Arias vs. Nieves on who argued) create reasonable doubt; evidentiary rulings deprived him of defense | Denial affirmed; trial justice complied with thirteenth‑juror procedure and did not overlook material evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158 (R.I. 2011) (third‑party perpetrator defense requires restrictions to avoid speculation)
- State v. Wright, 817 A.2d 600 (R.I. 2003) (limits on third‑party motive/opportunity evidence to prevent jury speculation)
- State v. Scanlon, 982 A.2d 1268 (R.I. 2009) (danger that third‑party evidence may open collateral issues; need reasonably specific offer of proof)
- State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101 (R.I. 1999) (prosecutor must prove every element even if undisputed; relevance of evidence to elements)
- State v. Momplaisir, 815 A.2d 65 (R.I. 2003) (trial judge’s discretion to exclude evidence likely to cause speculation or confusion)