State v. Christian Buchanan, 2014 WL 117343

Background

Defendant Christian Buchanan lived with his partner Amy and her daughters; over several moves (2000–2007) he repeatedly molested Amy’s daughter K.B., beginning when she was about ten and continuing until age seventeen.
K.B. disclosed the abuse in 2008 when she left home, leaving a letter for her mother; police interviewed Buchanan, who gave oral and written confessions admitting to multiple acts including digital penetration.
Buchanan was indicted on three counts of second-degree child molestation (sexual contact) and one count of first-degree child molestation (sexual penetration) covering specified time windows in 2000 and 2002.
Prior to trial Buchanan moved in limine to exclude evidence of uncharged acts; the court limited such evidence to the indictment time frame but later allowed admission of uncharged acts reflected in Buchanan’s own statements to police.
At trial the jury convicted Buchanan on all counts; the trial justice denied motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, and sentenced him to lengthy terms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Buchanan)	Held
Admissibility of uncharged sexual-misconduct evidence under Rule 404(b)	Evidence of other acts was admissible as interwoven with charged acts and as part of a coherent story; limited instruction would cure prejudice	Trial court abused discretion by permitting testimony of uncharged acts (outside bill of particulars), causing undue prejudice	Trial court did not abuse discretion; admission was limited (only to acts in defendant’s statements) and limiting instruction given; issue not preserved for appeal in any event
Sufficiency/weight of evidence for convictions within charged timeframes	K.B.’s detailed, credible testimony (corroborated by defendant’s confession and other testimony) proved crimes beyond a reasonable doubt within alleged periods	Evidence was insufficient and inconsistent; prosecution failed to prove crimes occurred in the bill-of-particulars windows or at all in Middletown	Trial justice independently reviewed testimony, found it credible and sufficient; denied new trial and judgment of acquittal was properly denied
Prosecutor’s comments implying defendant communicated with counsel while testifying	Any remark was harmless in context and cured by court admonition and limiting instruction	Remarks were prejudicial and warranted a new trial	No new trial; trial justice admonished prosecutor, gave requested limiting instruction, and defendant did not further preserve objection
Preservation of objections for appellate review	State points to record where defendant did not contemporaneously object to certain testimony and admissions	Defendant contends he preserved objection via earlier in limine ruling and tentative statements at trial	Court found defendant failed to timely/object specifically at trial; failure to preserve precluded appellate review

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (Rule 404(b) bars propensity use but permits evidence interwoven with charged conduct)
State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012) (motion-in-limine rulings are tentative; trial court may admit other-act evidence needed for a coherent story)
State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008) (appellate relief only where trial court clearly abused discretion and evidence was prejudicial and irrelevant)
State v. Torres, 787 A.2d 1214 (R.I. 2002) (in limine rulings are not final; trial justice may revisit as trial unfolds)
State v. Gaffney, 63 A.3d 888 (R.I. 2013) (review of denial of new trial requires more exacting analysis than judgment-of-acquittal review)
State v. Cardona, 969 A.2d 667 (R.I. 2009) (discussing standard of review for motions challenging sufficiency and weight of evidence)
State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773 (R.I. 2007) (trial justice must assess whether evidence suffices for jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt when ruling on new trial)
State v. Stansell, 909 A.2d 505 (R.I. 2006) (trial justice must weigh credibility and may accept/reject testimony in new-trial review)
State v. Otero, 788 A.2d 469 (R.I. 2002) (new-trial denial stands if reasonable minds could differ)
State v. Cianci, 430 A.2d 756 (R.I. 1981) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve jury-instruction or trial error for appeal)