State v. Enos, 2011 R.I. LEXIS 88

Enos and Mary dated for about six months after meeting on Match.com; Mary testified the relationship was intimate.
Enos terminated the relationship in August 2008; he and Mary arranged a jewelry return at a Wakefield restaurant.
During the August 2008 encounter, Enos assaulted Mary with a drinking glass, causing injuries and requiring restraint by restaurant staff.
Enos was charged December 8, 2008 with one count of assault with a dangerous weapon under §§11-5-2 and 12-29-5 (Domestic Violence Act).
At trial, seven witnesses testified; Enos was convicted of domestic assault with a dangerous weapon and sentenced to prison, restitution, and counseling programs.
On appeal, Enos challenged (a) sufficiency of evidence of a domestic relationship and (b) admission of post-Miranda silence testimony and related mistrial issue; the Rhode Island Supreme Court granted expedited review and affirmed the Superior Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved a domestic relationship under §12-29-2.	State argues the six-month dating, intimacy, and relationship context sufficed.	Enos contends the evidence failed to show (i) duration, (ii) type, or (iii) frequency of interaction.	Yes; evidence supported a substantive dating relationship sufficient for conviction.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a judgment of acquittal on domestic-relationship element.	State maintains the court properly assessed the factors and denied acquittal.	Enos argues the factors were inadequately proven and should have led to acquittal.	No; the court did not err in denying acquittal based on the totality of the evidence.
Whether the post-Miranda silence remark required a mistrial.	State argues the remark was addressed by prompt curative instruction.	Enos asserts the remark was prejudicial and warranted mistrial.	No; proper curative instruction and lack of inflaming prejudice supported rejection of mistrial.

State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1232 (R.I. 2010) (standard for reviewing judgments of acquittal; view evidence in state's favor)
State v. Caba, 887 A.2d 370 (R.I. 2005) (analysis for sufficiency of evidence and standard of review)
State v. Forbes, 779 A.2d 637 (R.I. 2001) (sufficiency of evidence for acquittal; standard applied)
Mercado, 635 A.2d 260 (R.I. 1993) (standard: view evidence in light favorable to state; draw reasonable inferences)
Laperche, 617 A.2d 1371 (R.I. 1992) (sufficiency-of-evidence framework; corroboration and inferences)
Hornoff, 760 A.2d 927 (R.I. 2000) (precedes on acquittal standard and evidence evaluation)
State v. Higham, 865 A.2d 1040 (R.I. 2004) (post-arrest remark vs. mistrial; curative instruction relevance)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post-arrest silence and due process concerns; limits on use of silence)
State v. Carter, 827 A.2d 636 (R.I. 2003) (legislative scheme concerns; cautions on reliance on piecemeal statutory language)
Oriola v. Thaler, 84 Cal.App.4th 397 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (flexibility of dating-relationship concept in statute)
Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J.Super. 252 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2003) (multifactor approach to substantive dating relationship)