267 A.3d 638
R.I.2022Background
- On August 1–2, 2015, after a night out, Erik Valdez entered Aleksandra Osipova’s unlocked apartment; Osipova later testified she awoke to Valdez touching her buttocks and moving toward her vagina, and she and friend Lacey Figueroa pushed him out after a physical struggle. Osipova sustained bruising to her upper arm.
- Police were contacted the day after the incident; photos taken that night were contested at trial (State’s witnesses said photos were from the incident night; defense presented an expert and a witness claiming the photos dated to June).
- The state charged Valdez with second-degree sexual assault, breaking and entering, simple assault, and disorderly conduct; after trial the jury convicted him of sexual assault (2d), breaking and entering, and disorderly conduct, acquitting him of simple assault.
- Valdez moved for judgment of acquittal (Rule 29) after the state rested and renewed it after his case; both were denied. He later moved for a new trial (Rule 33) arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that motion was denied.
- The trial justice concluded there was sufficient evidence of tumultuous behavior for disorderly conduct and, acting as the thirteenth juror, independently found the victims more credible than Valdez and that the jury verdicts were supportable.
- Valdez appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for disorderly conduct and (2) the trial justice erred in denying the new-trial motion by overlooking/misconstruing material evidence and failing to properly reassess credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial justice erred in denying motion for judgment of acquittal on disorderly conduct (sufficiency of evidence) | State: Victims’ testimony that Valdez entered uninvited, resisted ejection, and caused a commotion was sufficient under § 11-45-1(a) | Valdez: Evidence shows he was briefly present, dazed, and defending himself after being attacked; no tumultuous behavior proved | Affirmed — viewing evidence in State’s favor, victims’ testimony and inferences supported a finding of tumultuous behavior; Rule 29 denial proper (sufficiency standard applied). |
| Whether the trial justice erred in denying motion for new trial (weight of the evidence / credibility) | State: Trial justice properly acted as thirteenth juror, assessed credibility, and found jury verdict reasonable | Valdez: Trial justice overlooked or misconceived inconsistencies, intoxication, photographic evidence, and failed to independently reassess weight of evidence or explain denial | Affirmed — trial justice conducted independent review, articulated reasons, found victims more credible, did not misconceive material evidence, and denial was not against the fair preponderance of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otero, 788 A.2d 469 (R.I. 2002) (establishes sufficiency-of-evidence standard for Rule 29 review)
- State v. Snow, 670 A.2d 239 (R.I. 1996) (applies the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State)
- State v. Johnson, 251 A.3d 872 (R.I. 2021) (describes trial justice duties when acting as thirteenth juror on a new-trial motion)
- State v. Tabora, 198 A.3d 516 (R.I. 2019) (explains further analysis required when trial justice disagrees with the jury verdict)
- State v. Baptista, 79 A.3d 24 (R.I. 2013) (new-trial standard where verdict may fail to do substantial justice)
- State v. Fleck, 81 A.3d 1129 (R.I. 2014) (addresses the trial justice’s role in independently assessing credibility as thirteenth juror)
- State v. Banach, 648 A.2d 1363 (R.I. 1994) (trial justice need not cite all evidence but must cite enough to show correct standards applied)
- State v. Mattatall, 603 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 1992) (discusses consequences when a defendant testifies and trier of fact disbelieves him)
- State v. Pineda, 13 A.3d 623 (R.I. 2011) (permitting appellate review of record to confirm whether trial justice evaluated evidence when resolving a new-trial motion)