State v. CIRESI, 2012 R.I. LEXIS 112

Ciresi, a long-time North Providence police officer, was tried on two indictments for receiving stolen goods, attempted larceny, harboring a criminal, obstruction, burglary, conspiracy, and a firearm offense.
Two indictments were consolidated for trial over the state's objection, on theory of a common scheme to benefit from criminal informants.
The trial court admitted numerous uncharged-misdemeanor acts under Rule 404(b), with several witnesses who were known criminals testifying.
Key witnesses included Pine, Darryl Streeper, Dean Streeper, Bautista, and Casey, all providing testimony about Ciresi’s relationships and misconduct.
Ciresi preserved some challenges to 404(b) evidence and to Casey’s testimony, while many objections to the 404(b) evidence were deemed waived due to provisional rulings.
Ciresi was convicted on all counts except one, and the trial court sentenced him to terms running concurrently with one count partially suspended; he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) evidence was admissible	Ciresi argues Rule 404(b) exclusion for propensity motive.	State contends evidence shows common plan and MO, not impermissible propensity.	Court held admissible under Rule 404(b) for motive/plan, with limiting instructions.
Whether Casey's testimony should have been stricken	Casey lacked involvement in charged crimes; testimony was improper bolstering.	Casey’s testimony echoed Ciresi’s handling of informants and supported state’s theory.	Court affirmed admission as it corroborated pattern of informant handling; not reversible error.
Whether the Rule 404(b) balancing was properly applied	Rule 403 balancing should have weighed prejudice more heavily.	Trial court properly balanced relevance, probative value, and prejudice with instructions.	Court found no abuse of discretion; balancing was properly conducted.
Whether joinder and consolidation were proper	Joinder allowed under Rule 8(a) due to common scheme; sevrance unnecessary.	Consolidation risked prejudice; severance should have been granted.	Court sustained joinder and denial of severance; no substantial prejudice shown.
Whether joinder violated rights to a fair trial	Consolidation prejudiced defense due to differing charges and witnesses.	Evidence would be admissible in separate trials; instructions mitigated prejudice.	No reversible prejudice; instructions and mutual admissibility favored keeping joined trial.

State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b))
State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008) (standard for admissibility and prejudice balancing)
State v. Moreno, 996 A.2d 673 (R.I. 2010) (preservation of evidentiary objections; abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Pitts, 990 A.2d 185 (R.I. 2010) (admissibility under Rule 404(b) and cautionary instructions)
State v. Brown, 900 A.2d 1155 (R.I. 2006) (clarifies non-exclusive purposes for Rule 404(b) evidence)
State v. Rodriguez, 996 A.2d 145 (R.I. 2010) (line between Rule 404(b) evidence for propensity vs. other purposes)
State v. Lemon, 497 A.2d 713 (R.I. 1985) (independent relevance of other-crimes evidence)
State v. Acquisto, 463 A.2d 122 (R.I. 1983) (permissible use of other-crimes evidence to prove plan/identity)
State v. Gomes, 690 A.2d 310 (R.I. 1997) (coherence of a trial to present a complete story; exceptions to 404(b))
State v. Pona, 948 A.2d 941 (R.I. 2008) (necessity and relevance of evidence in context of common scheme)
State v. Pereira, 973 A.2d 19 (R.I. 2009) (mutual admissibility and severance considerations under Rule 14)
State v. Day, 898 A.2d 698 (R.I. 2006) (balancing of efficiency vs. fair trial in joinder/severance)
State v. Goulet, 21 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2011) (standard for abuse of discretion on severance under Rule 14)