45 A.3d 1272
R.I.2012Background
- Cook was convicted in Kent County Superior Court on 22 counts, including first- and second-degree sexual assaults and related offenses.
- Evidence included video and photographs of Cook sexually acting with Victor, a seventeen-year-old, who appeared asleep.
- Additional evidence showed Cook touching Whitney, another seventeen-year-old, while she appeared asleep.
- The state dismissed several counts (second-degree sexual assaults) due to statute-of-limitations concerns before trial.
- The state sought to admit Whitney’s sexual-misconduct evidence under Rule 404(b) to rebut consent defenses; the trial court viewed the video and allowed testimony with limiting instructions.
- On appeal, Cook challenged (a) a juror-mistrial issue raised by a probation remark and (b) the Whitney evidence admission; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial after probation remark | State: cautionary instructions and voir dire cured prejudice | Cook: remark was prejudicial; mistrial required | No reversible error; instructions and voir dire preserved impartiality |
| Admission of Whitney evidence | State: 404(b) admissible to rebut consent and show plan | Cook: prejudicial and unnecessary; violates Rule 403 | Admissible under 404(b); no reversible error; Rule 403 argument waived and, in any case, evidence not unfairly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rosario, 14 A.3d 206 (R.I.2011) (prejudice assessment depends on context and surrounding circumstances)
- State v. LaPlante, 962 A.2d 63 (R.I.2009) (extraneous statements assessed in light of circumstances)
- State v. Pacheco, 763 A.2d 971 (R.I.2001) (prejudice concerns considered in evaluating evidence)
- State v. Barbosa, 908 A.2d 1000 (R.I.2006) (jury instructed to disregard stricken testimony)
- State v. Mendoza, 889 A.2d 153 (R.I.2005) (careful consideration of cautions to juries)
- State v. Gaspar, 982 A.2d 140 (R.I.2009) (Rule 403 applies to Rule 404(b) evidence; balancing required)
- State v. Lamoureux, 623 A.2d 9 (R.I.1993) (consent analysis closely related to Rule 404(b) absence of mistake)
- State v. Tobin, 602 A.2d 528 (R.I.1992) (sex-offense evidence used sparingly and reasonably necessary)
- State v. Pule, 453 A.2d 1095 (R.I.1982) (evidence in sex offenses must be used sparingly)
- State v. Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d 12 (R.I.2009) (raise-or-waive rule for evidentiary objections)
- State v. Warren, 624 A.2d 841 (R.I.1993) (objections must be specific to preserve appellate review)