State v. Christian Rosado, 139 A.3d 419

Background

March 30, 2013 shooting in Woonsocket left victim Ikey Wilson severely injured (leg amputated); three witnesses (Wilson, Jalisa Collins, Travis Reeves) identified Christian Rosado as one of three shooters.
Charges: two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon (firearm) and one count of using a firearm during a violent crime; jury convicted on the two assault counts and acquitted on the firearm-use count.
At trial, Wilson testified about a prior confrontation months earlier at his son’s school involving Rosado and others; before trial the State had notified defense only that Wilson would describe 5–6 people at that prior incident, but Wilson identified two known nicknames (Smoke and City) while testifying.
Defense moved for a mistrial asserting a discovery violation and prejudice from the mid-trial disclosure identifying Smoke and City as participants in the earlier altercation; the State and the trial justice said the nondisclosure was unintentional.
Trial justice denied the mistrial, finding no undue prejudice (noting prior statements referenced Smoke and City and that defense could have sought a continuance); defense extensively impeached Wilson on inconsistencies; Superior Court sentenced Rosado to a total of twenty years (some suspended).
On appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Rosado argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial for a Rule 16 discovery violation; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial justice abused discretion by denying mistrial for alleged Rule 16 discovery violation	State: nondisclosure was unintentional; any prejudice was for credibility and not sufficient for mistrial; less drastic remedies available	Rosado: mid‑trial disclosure that Smoke and City were connected to prior altercation deprived defense of opportunity to investigate, warranting mistrial	No abuse of discretion; nondisclosure was inadvertent, references to Smoke/City appeared in prior statements, defense not prejudiced and could have sought a continuance; denial affirmed
Whether new testimony was so inflammatory it distracted jury from issues	State: testimony impeachable and addressed credibility; not unduly inflammatory	Rosado: identification of accomplices in prior incident could inflame jurors and imply bad character/association	Trial justice found testimony not unduly prejudicial; Court upheld that finding
Whether continuance was an adequate remedy	State: continuance could address prejudice; defendant never sought one	Rosado: mistrial necessary because investigation into Smoke/City was precluded by surprise	Court noted defendant could have requested continuance and failed to show why that was insufficient; mistrial unnecessary
Whether federal and state constitutional due process rights were violated	State: no constitutional violation because lack of prejudice and unintentional nondisclosure	Rosado: denial of opportunity to investigate violated due process	Court limited review to trial‑raised claims and held no due process violation shown regarding the specific surprise testimony

Key Cases Cited

State v. Tully, 110 A.3d 1181 (R.I. 2015) (trial‑court discretion on motions to pass/mistrial)
State v. Cipriano, 21 A.3d 408 (R.I. 2011) (standard for assessing prejudicial impact of remarks)
State v. Marte, 92 A.3d 148 (R.I. 2014) (four‑factor inquiry for discovery violations under Rule 16)
State v. Chalk, 816 A.2d 413 (R.I. 2003) (mistrial inappropriate if less drastic remedy like continuance suffices)
State v. Werner, 830 A.2d 1107 (R.I. 2003) (examine remark in its factual context when assessing prejudice)