State v. Daniel Lastarza, 203 A.3d 1159

On July 23, 2014, Lastarza and Tucker attempted to sell a vehicle they did not own; a confrontation later occurred at a bar between the vehicle buyer (Stack), Tucker, and a bystander (Nassi).
Tucker choked Stack; Nassi intervened. Lastarza emerged with a two-by-four and struck Stack, delivering fatal blows; Stack died days later.
Lastarza gave false names, lied to witnesses and police, and later told his girlfriend he would go to jail for injuring Stack. He was arrested after surveillance footage and witness statements linked him to the assault.
Indicted for murder and assault with a dangerous weapon, Lastarza was tried, acquitted of the assault count, but convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.
At trial the judge instructed on second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter (but not voluntary manslaughter). Defense did not object to the instructions.
During closing, the prosecutor characterized Lastarza as a "thief," "scam artist," and "liar;" defense moved for mistrial, which the trial justice denied and cured with instructions. Lastarza appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction on lesser-included offense	State: instructions were proper and not objected to; jury charged correctly on law	Lastarza: trial court should have instructed on voluntary manslaughter (intentional killing in heat of passion) rather than involuntary manslaughter	Court: Issue waived for failure to object under Rule 30; no plain-constitutional error shown, so claim is not preserved
Denial of mistrial for prosecutor's closing remarks	State: comments were fair inference from evidence and defendant’s own testimony/admissions	Lastarza: prosecutor’s labels and references to past crimes were inflammatory and prejudicial; cautionary instruction insufficient	Court: Prosecutor’s remarks were within permissible latitude, responsive to evidence and defendant’s testimony; trial judge’s curative instruction was adequate; no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial

State v. Vargas, 991 A.2d 1056 (R.I. 2010) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Marrapese, 351 A.2d 95 (R.I. 1976) (failure to object to jury charge precludes appellate challenge)
State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454 (R.I. 2013) (need for specific contemporaneous objection to preserve issue)
State v. Davis, 877 A.2d 642 (R.I. 2005) (failure to object waives non-constitutional claims on appeal)
State v. Cipriano, 21 A.3d 408 (R.I. 2011) (standard for assessing prejudicial impact for mistrial/motion to pass)
State v. Boillard, 789 A.2d 881 (R.I. 2002) (prosecutor allowed considerable latitude; statements must be supported by evidence)
State v. Horton, 871 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2005) (remarks must pertain to evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190 (R.I. 2005) (jury presumed capable of following curative instructions absent evidence to contrary)
State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008) (importance of record evidence showing jurors decided case on evidence despite adverse remarks)
State v. Alston, 47 A.3d 234 (R.I. 2012) (instructional language on manslaughter and defense of a third person)