State v. Eric Mensah, 227 A.3d 474

Defendant Eric Mensah was tried for molesting his then-eight-year-old daughter (Emma) after she moved from Ghana; charges included two counts of first-degree and two counts of second-degree child molestation.
Alleged primary assault occurred summer 2014: Emma testified to anal penetration once, digital vaginal penetration, and repeated touching; she delayed disclosure until December 2015.
In July 2015 a separate incident occurred: neighbor heard screaming, police responded, saw Emma in the shower, and defendant had previously beaten Emma with a hanger; State sought to admit this incident under Rule 404(b) to explain Emma’s fear and delay.
At trial State introduced evidence of other noncharged sexual contact and the July 2015 police encounter; defendant did not lodge a timely on-the-record Rule 404(b) objection during trial.
Jury convicted on all four counts; defendant moved for a new trial arguing insufficient evidence (especially as to anal penetration) and challenged admission of the July 2015 incident on appeal.
Supreme Court affirmed: 404(b) challenge waived for lack of timely objection; denial of new trial upheld on both sufficiency and weight grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) of July 23, 2015 police encounter	Admissible as part of the narrative: shows why Emma feared/report delayed and demonstrates lewd disposition/plan	Not similar or sexual; prejudicial and irrelevant; admission lacked specific 404(b) rationale and violated Rule 403 and fair trial rights	Waived on appeal for failure to timely object; trial justice had discretion to admit and ruling affirmed
Motion for new trial — sufficiency/weight of evidence re anal (and digital) penetration	Evidence (Emma’s report of anal pain plus defendant’s movements) was sufficient; reasonable jurors could convict; trial justice properly denied new trial	Testimony was vague/imprecise; anal penetration insufficient under In re B.H.; verdict against weight of evidence	Denial affirmed: sufficiency met (testimony distinguished from In re B.H.); trial justice performed independent weight review and reasonably concluded minds could differ

In re B.H., 138 A.3d 774 (R.I. 2016) (requires proof of actual anal penetration, not mere imprecise references to "butt")
State v. Clark, 974 A.2d 558 (R.I. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review and de novo appellate review)
State v. Johnson, 199 A.3d 1046 (R.I. 2019) (trial justice as thirteenth juror; weight-of-evidence review)
State v. Buchanan, 81 A.3d 1119 (R.I. 2014) (in limine rulings are preliminary; objections must be renewed at trial to preserve issues)
State v. Perry, 182 A.3d 558 (R.I. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion review for admission of 404(b) evidence)
State v. Andrade, 209 A.3d 1185 (R.I. 2019) (raise-or-waive rule for appellate review of trial objections)