State v. Donald Young, 78 A.3d 787

Defendant Donald Young was convicted on seven counts including murder, conspiracy, firearm offenses, assault with a dangerous weapon, and firearm possession.
He was sentenced to consecutive life terms plus additional years with no possibility of parole.
The State’s theory was that Benton’s murder was retaliation for a 2007 homicide and that Soko was targeted for his affiliation with a rival gang.
Soko identified Young as the shooter from a photographic lineup after being wounded during the incident.
Young challenged the admission of certain evidence (gang affiliation, prior stabbing, unsolved Regans homicide) and argued double jeopardy regarding two counts merge.
The Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting challenges to admissibility as waived and upholding consecutive sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of gang affiliation evidence	State argues some gang-relate evidence is relevant to motive.	Young contends the evidence is unfairly prejudicial and lacks probative value.	Waived; admission not reversible on appeal
Admission of Darren Regans murder testimony under Rule 404(b)	State contends it shows motive and feud between gangs.	Young argues it is irrelevant and prejudicial to Benton’s murder.	Waived; not reversible on appeal
Admission of Soko’s stabbing and later altercation testimony	State asserts it demonstrates defendant’s propensity and motive.	Young claims it shows violent propensity and is unduly prejudicial.	Waived; not reversible on appeal
Double jeopardy / merger of counts 4 and 6	Hunter/Rodriguez framework supports consecutive sentences; no merger intent issue.	Counts 4 and 6 should have merged under Blockburger test.	Consecutive sentences upheld; no double-jeopardy violation

State v. Evans, 742 A.2d 715 (R.I. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Gabriau, 696 A.2d 290 (R.I. 1997) (relevance and prejudice in evidentiary decisions)
State v. Mastracchio, 612 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1992) (preservation and waiver of appellate objections)
State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855 (R.I. 2013) (Rule 404(b) relevance versus prejudice balance)
State v. Smith, 39 A.3d 669 (R.I. 2012) (preservation of evidentiary objections)
State v. Harris, 871 A.2d 341 (R.I. 2005) (preservation requirement in appellate review)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-act/different-elements test for double jeopardy)
State v. Davis, 120 R.I. 82, 384 A.2d 1061 (R.I. 1978) (Blockburger analysis for multiple offenses)
State v. Rodriguez, 822 A.2d 894 (R.I. 2003) (Hunter analysis for cumulative sentencing)
State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435 (R.I. 2010) (Legislative intent to impose consecutive sentences for firearms)
State v. Monteiro, 924 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2007) (consecutive sentences for murder and firearm use not merging)
State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631 (R.I. 2006) (convictions for related offenses do not necessarily merge)
Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (consecutive sentencing when legislatively intended)