187 A.3d 330
R.I.2018Background
- Victim ("Emily"), a minor, was recruited and forced into commercial sex at defendant Curtis Maxie’s Pawtucket residence in April 2014; ads were posted on Backpage and customers visited the apartment.
- Defendant photographed the minor, directed her interactions with customers, took money, and supervised multiple sexual encounters; the minor resisted and identified him to police.
- Grand jury indicted Maxie on three counts of first-degree sexual assault, one count of sex trafficking of a minor (count 4) under G.L. § 11-67-6, and one count of conspiracy to commit that offense (count 6); Melia, a co-defendant, pleaded and testified for the state.
- Maxie moved pretrial to dismiss counts 4 and 6, arguing § 11-67-6 was fatally defective because it did not expressly state that the listed conduct was a crime; trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted on all counts.
- On appeal Maxie raised: (1) statutory invalidity of § 11-67-6 (failure to state an offense); (2) duplicity of count 4; (3) mistrial/motion to pass after witness mentioned uncharged prostitution history; and (4) erroneous admission of recorded jail calls.
- The Supreme Court vacated convictions on counts 4 and 6 (statute failed to state an offense) and affirmed all other convictions and rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 11-67-6 stated a crime (counts 4 & 6) | State: statute, read with penalty clause and related trafficking provisions, criminalizes conduct; any ambiguity should be harmonized with § 11-67-3 | Maxie: subsection (b) ends with a dangling "or" and contains no clause declaring the listed conduct a crime; statute therefore fails to state an offense; conspiracy count depends on underlying crime | Held: statute failed to state a crime; convictions for counts 4 and 6 vacated because the court may not supply missing criminalizing language (vacated) |
| Whether count 4 was duplicitous | State: indictment tracked § 11-67-6’s list of acts as alternatives | Maxie: count parroted multiple verbs and was duplicitous, denying fair notice | Held: Court did not decide duplicity because vacatur of § 11-67-6 made it unnecessary to reach this issue |
| Motion for mistrial/motion to pass after witness referenced uncharged prostitution history | State: testimony was relevant to explain witness’s motives; trial judge struck and gave curative instruction | Maxie: remarks were highly prejudicial and warranted mistrial or passing the case | Held: Trial justice did not abuse discretion in denying motion to pass; curative instructions and strikes were adequate (affirmed) |
| Admissibility of recorded ACI calls (relevance; Rule 404(b); Rule 403) | State: recordings showed defendant’s consciousness of guilt, intent, and ongoing operation; offered for permissible non-character purposes | Maxie: recordings were irrelevant, constituted improper character/uncharged-misconduct evidence, and were unduly prejudicial | Held: Issue waived on appeal for failure to make specific contemporaneous objections at trial; court affirmed admission (waived) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Town of Tiverton v. Pelletier, 174 A.3d 713 (R.I. 2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Saluter, 715 A.2d 1250 (R.I. 1998) (legislature defines crimes; courts may not rewrite penal statutes)
- State v. DelBonis, 862 A.2d 760 (R.I. 2004) (criminal statutes must include a penalty and courts may not supplement statutes)
- State v. Tessier, 213 A.2d 699 (R.I. 1965) (a conviction cannot stand under a statute lacking a penalty)
- State v. Rosario, 14 A.3d 206 (R.I. 2011) (trial-judge rulings on motions to pass afforded great weight)
- State v. Archuletta, 526 P.2d 911 (Utah 1974) (statute that omitted definition of crime could not be cured by courts; conviction quashed)