State v. Carlos Rivera, 253 A.3d 851

Defendant Carlos Rivera (step-grandfather) was indicted for sexual offenses against minor Allison for acts alleged between July 2013 and July 2015 (one count of first-degree sexual penetration; multiple second-degree molestation counts).
Three weeks after January 26, 2016 immigration proceedings involving Allison’s grandmother Amanda DeLeone, Allison accused Rivera; defense contended those proceedings supplied a motive to fabricate.
State moved in limine to bar any reference to witnesses’ immigration status or the Boston proceedings; trial justice allowed limited foundational cross of Allison about her awareness but precluded broader testimony.
Defense offered Jackelyn Rivera (daughter of defendant and DeLeone) to testify about DeLeone’s reaction after the Boston hearing; trial justice excluded testimony suggesting specific statements about the proceedings as inadmissible hearsay and limited Jackelyn to general observations (e.g., visible anger).
Jury convicted Rivera on three counts; he was sentenced and appealed, arguing the limitation of Jackelyn’s testimony violated his constitutional right to present a full defense.

Issue	State's Argument	Rivera's Argument	Held
Whether excluding defense witness testimony about immigration proceedings violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense	Evidence about immigration proceedings was irrelevant and would invite mini-immigration litigation; much of the proffer was hearsay	Testimony was critical to show motive to fabricate and was admissible to show DeLeone’s state of mind and Allison’s potential knowledge (not offered for truth)	No constitutional violation; court affirmed. Trial justice’s limitations were proper (de novo review of constitutional claim, affirmed)
Whether proffered testimony was admissible under evidentiary rules (hearsay and Rule 602 personal-knowledge concerns)	Proffered statements lacked a hearsay exception and Jackelyn lacked personal knowledge that Allison knew the information	Proffered testimony was offered not for truth but to show state of mind and motive to fabricate; therefore not hearsay	Trial justice did not abuse discretion: portions were inadmissible hearsay and Jackelyn lacked demonstrated personal knowledge under Rule 602; limited nonhearsay observations were permitted

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1967) (right to compulsory process and to call witnesses)
State v. Bowling, 585 A.2d 1181 (R.I. 1991) (defendant’s right to present witnesses)
State v. Lopez, 943 A.2d 1035 (R.I. 2008) (de novo review for claims defendant’s right to present defense was violated)
State v. Scanlon, 982 A.2d 1268 (R.I. 2009) (right to present defense does not override evidentiary rules)
State v. Oliveira, 961 A.2d 299 (R.I. 2008) (definition and exclusion of hearsay)
United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (evidentiary rules can limit testimony despite defense claims)
State v. Ranieri, 586 A.2d 1094 (R.I. 1991) (Rule 602 requires sufficient opportunity to perceive the subject matter)
State v. Bergevine, 942 A.2d 974 (R.I. 2008) (rationale for hearsay exceptions and trustworthiness)
Ims v. Town of Portsmouth, 32 A.3d 914 (R.I. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard and deference to trial-justice factual findings)
State v. Jones, 242 A.3d 47 (R.I. 2020) (review of evidentiary rulings under abuse-of-discretion standard)