State v. Elizabeth Mendez
116 A.3d 228
R.I.2015Background
- On July 26–27, 2010 police stopped a Nissan Maxima driven by Elizabeth Mendez; officers smelled marijuana, searched the trunk, and recovered six bales (~30 kg) of marijuana and a blue MDMA pill. Co-defendant Osvaldo German later gave statements implicating Mendez but then made contradictory signed and unsigned versions.
- Mendez was indicted for possession of >5 kg marijuana, conspiracy, and possession of MDMA; tried alone in March–April 2012.
- The State’s proof included officer testimony about the police BOLO, the occupants’ evasive behavior, the odor/bulk of marijuana, and German’s statements; defense presented one alibi witness.
- Jury convicted Mendez of possession (>5 kg) but acquitted on conspiracy and MDMA counts.
- Mendez moved for a new trial (Rule 33) and later appealed, raising three main issues: (1) error in the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction, (2) denial of new trial / insufficiency/weight of evidence, and (3) severity of the 20-year sentence under R.I. Const. art. I, § 8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mendez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Supplemental jury instruction given in response to jury question | No error; juries are presumed to understand instructions and the supplemental charge merely directed them to apply the full instructions to the facts | Trial court should have given defendant’s alternative, clarifying instruction (stating ownership/control of vehicle alone is insufficient to prove knowledge); failure prejudiced deliberations | Waived in part and rejected on merits: objection to the alternative instruction was untimely (raised next morning), and trial court’s supplemental instruction was not erroneous for preserved objections |
| 2. Motion for new trial (weight and sufficiency of evidence) | Evidence (odor, bulk of marijuana, evasive driving/behavior, German’s unsigned statement implicating Mendez) supported conviction beyond reasonable dispute | German’s statements were unreliable and contradicted; evidence permitted an innocent explanation (e.g., German put drugs in car), so verdict was against weight/insufficient | Affirmed: trial justice properly performed the three-step weight-of-evidence review, found some credibility in German’s unsigned statement, credited odor/bulk/evasive behavior, agreed with jury verdict; no abuse of discretion |
| 3. Sentence proportionality under R.I. Const. art. I, § 8 | Sentence within statutory framework; no Rule 35 motion was made below | 20-year sentence (5 to serve, 15 suspended) is manifestly excessive and unconstitutional | Not considered: defendant failed to pursue Rule 35 in Superior Court, so appellate review of sentence is not properly before this Court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Berroa, 6 A.3d 1095 (R.I. 2010) (reversing where facts supported innocent explanation and conviction rested on speculation)
- State v. Fetzik, 577 A.2d 990 (R.I. 1990) (timing of requested instructions; late requests sometimes excused where trial court had opportunity to consider)
- State v. Robat, 49 A.3d 58 (R.I. 2012) (framework for reviewing motions for new trial and deference to trial justice who acted as thirteenth juror)
- State v. Hie, 93 A.3d 963 (R.I. 2014) (standard for affirming verdict when trial justice concurs or reasonable minds could differ)
- State v. Flori, 963 A.2d 932 (R.I. 2009) (Rule 33 does not excuse contemporaneous objection requirements; raise-or-waive rule applies)
- State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues not presented to trial court)