State v. Craig Van Dongen, 132 A.3d 1070

Background

Defendant Craig Van Dongen and fiancée Kristine Andrew had a long, intermittent relationship and lived together; an altercation occurred on Jan. 13, 2012, leading to criminal charges.
Defendant was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon (amended to simple assault) and domestic disorderly conduct; he waived a jury and was tried before a Superior Court justice.
The only percipient witnesses were the two principals; their accounts conflicted: Andrew testified that Van Dongen threw, punched, kicked, and stomped her after an argument; Van Dongen claimed Andrew struck first and he acted in self-defense.
Evidence included a 911 call, police and paramedic testimony, photographs of injuries, and emergency-room testimony documenting contusions, lacerations, and reported hematuria. Defendant admitted to a responding officer that he hit Andrew.
The trial justice found Andrew’s testimony "wholly credible," convicted Van Dongen of simple assault and domestic disorderly conduct, denied post-trial motions, and sentenced him to suspended time and probation. Van Dongen appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Van Dongen)	Held
Credibility determinations	Trial justice properly credited Andrew; record supports verdict	Trial justice misconceived/overlooked material evidence and inconsistencies in Andrew’s accounts and medical records	Court defers to trial justice; competent evidence supports convictions; no misconceiving of material evidence
Self-defense burden	State carried burden; defendant’s self-defense claim rejected on credibility and evidence	Trial justice failed to require state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt; defendant acted in self-defense	Court held sufficient evidence to find defendant was not acting reasonably in self-defense; standard applied correctly; credibility determination controls
Evidentiary rulings & cross-examination	Trial justice afforded reasonable latitude; admissible therapy records were balanced	Trial justice abused discretion by barring motive/bias evidence and excluding counseling records	Court found defendant had extensive cross-examination and that exclusions were within trial justice’s discretion and not prejudicial
Motion for new trial (Rule 33)	Denial appropriate; written findings supported by record	Trial justice overlooked material evidence and should have granted a new trial	Court applied deferential review and affirmed denial; defendant failed to show overlooked or misconceived evidence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Adewumi, 966 A.2d 1217 (discussing deference to trial justice credibility findings)
State v. LaCroix, 911 A.2d 674 (same)
State v. Erminelli, 991 A.2d 1064 (respect for trial-judge observations of demeanor)
State v. Gonzalez, 986 A.2d 235 (trial-judge credibility deference)
South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. McMahon, 116 A.3d 204 (will not substitute appellate view where competent evidence supports findings)
State v. Lomba, 37 A.3d 615 (definition of simple assault)
State v. Pope, 414 A.2d 781 (assault/battery definition)
State v. Urena, 899 A.2d 1281 (self-defense law and initial aggressor rule)
State v. D’Amario, 568 A.2d 1383 (force reasonably necessary in self-defense)
State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (limits on defensive force)
State v. Gianquitti, 22 A.3d 1161 (deferential review of bench-trial factual findings)
DiMaio v. Del Sesto, 228 A.2d 861 (failure to refer to contradictory evidence does not equal overlooking material evidence if ground for rejection is indicated)
Blecha v. Wells Fargo Guard-Company Service, 610 A.2d 98 (express acceptance of one witness implies rejection of another)
State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097 (constitutional right to reasonable latitude to explore bias on cross-examination)
State v. Parillo, 480 A.2d 1349 (limits on prohibiting cross-examination for bias)
State v. Hazard, 745 A.2d 748 (reasonable latitude standard for cross-examination)
Thomas v. Proctor, 63 A.3d 881 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. DiPetrillo, 922 A.2d 124 (Rule 33 review defers to trial justice)
State v. Champagne, 668 A.2d 311 (trial justice’s factual findings entitled to great weight)