State v. Charles Mitchell
2013 R.I. LEXIS 153
R.I.2013Background
- Defendant Charles Mitchell was convicted in Superior Court of two counts of first-degree child molestation and five counts of second-degree child molestation.
- The State sought to admit Rule 404(b) evidence that Mitchell had touched Hannah’s older sister, Selina, arguing it showed intent/knowledge; the ruling occurred in chambers before Selina testified.
- Hannah, the victim, testified to multiple, explicit molestation incidents by Mitchell in 2007–2007; Selina testified to a separate touching by Mitchell in 2007.
- Pamela (Hannah’s mother) testified about Selina’s disclosure and the family’s continued visitation with Mitchell; the defense cross-examined about ongoing visits.
- Mitchell moved for a new trial and later sought new counsel before sentencing; the trial court denied both; Mitchell was sentenced in November 2011, with final judgment in March 2012.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding the Rule 404(b) evidence admissible, the 404(b) instruction adequate, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the new-trial and new-counsel rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Selina's prior-touching evidence under Rule 404(b) | Mitchell’s molestation of Selina was admissible to prove intent and credibility | Evidence was irrelevant or more prejudicial than probative | Admissible; nonremote, similar-acts to show intent/credibility; not abuse of discretion |
| Adequacy/timeliness of 404(b) cautionary instruction | Instruction was unnecessary beyond evidence admitted | Instruction should have been timely/adequate | Sua sponte instruction given; adequate; no reversible error waived by defense |
| Motion for a new trial | Trial evidence supported verdict beyond reasonable doubt | Trial court failed to conduct proper three-step analysis | Affirmed; trial court did independently review and credited State’s witnesses; no clear error |
| Denial of new-counsel request before sentencing | Prompt sentencing favored stability and efficiency | Right to counsel of choice required new counsel | Denied; balancing test properly applied; no abuse; Farman distinction applied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 59 A.3d 73 (R.I. 2013) (admissibility decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Gaspar, 982 A.2d 140 (R.I. 2009) (standard for evidentiary rulings; deference to trial court)
- State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (Rule 404(b) and prejudicial/irrelevant evidence considerations)
- State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008) (context for admissibility of evidence and sua sponte instructions)
- State v. Coningford, 901 A.2d 623 (R.I. 2006) (similar-offense rule for 404(b) and necessity to show relevant purpose)
- State v. Mohapatra, 880 A.2d 802 (R.I. 2005) (prior-sexual-misconduct evidence to prove intent/credibility; nonremote offenses)
- State v. Hopkins, 698 A.2d 183 (R.I. 1997) (credibility considerations in sex-offense cases; necessity of corroboration)
- State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.2d 879 (R.I. 1996) (Rule 404(b) applicability in sexual offenses)
- State v. Garcia, 743 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2000) (requirement of cautionary instruction for 404(b) evidence)
- State v. Paola, 59 A.3d 99 (R.I. 2013) (three-step new-trial analysis; deference standard)