State v. Darnell Hie, 93 A.3d 963

Victim ("Jessica") reported in 2009 that her stepfather, Darnell Hie, molested her in 2002–2003 when she was in third grade; indictment charged 14 counts (four first-degree, ten second-degree).
At trial Jessica testified to five nocturnal assaults over 10–12 weeks; jury convicted Hie of two second-degree counts (hand-to-vagina and hand-to-breast from the first incident) and acquitted on the other 12 counts.
During redirect, the prosecutor asked Jessica’s mother ("Yvonne") questions revealing details of the assaults for the first time to her; Yvonne reacted emotionally on the stand.
Defense moved to pass the case (mistrial); trial justice called the prosecutor’s questioning inappropriate but denied the motion and gave a curative instruction cautioning jurors not to be swayed by sympathy.
Defendant moved for a new trial arguing the prosecutor’s ambush prejudiced the jury and that verdicts were inconsistent; the trial justice (acting as 13th juror) found witnesses credible, acknowledged the inconsistency but would not disturb the guilty verdicts, and denied the motion.
Supreme Court affirmed, holding the curative instruction cured any prejudice and the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hie)	Held
Whether trial justice abused discretion in denying motion to pass (mistrial) after prosecutor’s redirect elicited emotional reaction from victim’s mother	State: Defense opened door on cross; redirect was responsive and any prejudice cured by prompt curative instruction	Defense: Prosecutor ambushed witness with explicit details, caused inflammatory sympathy; instruction inadequate — mistrial required	Denied — no abuse of discretion; curative instruction was timely/effective and jury capable of following it
Whether trial justice erred in denying motion for new trial (acting as 13th juror) given alleged inconsistent verdicts and alleged taint from mother’s reaction	State: Trial justice gave proper 3-step analysis, found witnesses credible; mother’s reaction was superfluous to the core evidence (victim’s testimony)	Defense: Verdicts inconsistent; mother’s emotional reaction improperly influenced court and jury; trial justice relied on that reaction	Denied — trial justice independently assessed credibility, reasonably could not disagree with verdicts, and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence

State v. Clements, 83 A.3d 553 (R.I. 2014) (trial-justice denial of mistrial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190 (R.I. 2005) (trial justice has best position to assess prejudice from witness conduct; jurors presumed to follow curative instructions)
State v. Hoyle, 404 A.2d 69 (R.I. 1979) (mistrial warranted only if curative instruction untimely/ineffective or prejudice indelible)
State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 2005) (no precise formula; evaluate context and whether instruction cured prejudice)
State v. Silva, 84 A.3d 411 (R.I. 2014) (trial justice as thirteenth juror must consider charge, assess credibility, and decide if a different result would be reached)
State v. Harrison, 66 A.3d 432 (R.I. 2013) (if trial justice agrees with jury or finds reasonable minds could differ, verdict stands)
State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008) (motion to pass a case is equivalent to mistrial; reviewing standard explained)