State v. Erwin Grantley, 149 A.3d 124

Background

In May 2009, Crystal Bruce was assaulted in her Providence home; she suffered a stab wound, collapsed lung, brain bleeding, ligature marks, and other injuries. She testified that Erwin Grantley entered her bedroom uninvited, assaulted and stabbed her, then took her keys and phone and left.
Bruce and Grantley had an on-again, off-again intimate relationship; Grantley had previously lived with Bruce, his name remained on her mailbox, and Bruce had stayed overnight at his residence days before the incident.
Bruce’s two sons testified they did not invite Grantley to the house and that he was not permitted there that morning; one son later found a bloody knife blade in a towel under Bruce’s bed (seized by police days later). Police photographed the scene but did not process fingerprints or do DNA testing on the knife or clothing.
Grantley was tried in Providence Superior Court; a jury convicted him of (1) assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling and (2) breaking and entering of a dwelling (domestic). He was acquitted on vehicle theft and petit larceny. Sentencing produced consecutive terms and an additional habitual offender term.
Grantley moved for judgment of acquittal (Rule 29) and a new trial (Rule 33), arguing (a) implied consent to enter Bruce’s home negated lack-of-consent for breaking-and-entering, and (b) the assault conviction was against the weight of the evidence because Bruce was not credible and there was insufficient forensic corroboration. The trial justice denied both motions; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Grantley)	Held
Whether trial justice erred denying Rule 33 motion on breaking-and-entering	State: evidence showed Grantley lacked permission to be in Bruce’s home and credibility supported verdict	Grantley: he had implied consent from an ongoing intimate relationship and prior residence	Court: Affirmed — trial justice properly found lack of consent and credible testimony supporting conviction
Whether trial justice erred denying Rule 29 motion on breaking-and-entering	State: prima facie case of unlawful entry; burden shifted to Grantley to show permission and he failed	Grantley: insufficient evidence of lack of consent; implied consent should be recognized	Court: Affirmed — since Rule 33 standard satisfied, Rule 29 also satisfied under deferential review
Whether trial justice erred denying Rule 33 motion on assault with a dangerous weapon	State: Bruce’s credible testimony and injuries supported that Grantley stabbed her with intent to kill	Grantley: Bruce’s credibility was undermined (inconsistent statements, IRS-check issue); no forensic proof tying him to stab wound or intent	Court: Affirmed — trial justice credited Bruce, considered lack of forensic work but found witness testimony and injuries sufficient to support intent and perpetration
Whether Rhode Island should recognize implied-consent defense for entry	State: unnecessary because defendant can contest consent under existing statute/evidence framework	Grantley: asks Court to adopt implied-consent doctrine based on relationship	Court: Declined to adopt new implied-consent doctrine; existing statutory and case-law framework suffices to raise consent as a defense

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ranieri, 560 A.2d 350 (R.I. 1989) (state must establish prima facie lack of consent; defendant may then produce evidence of permission)
State v. Dyer, 813 A.2d 71 (R.I. 2003) (court evaluates totality of facts to determine whether defendant had permission to enter)
State v. Karngar, 29 A.3d 1232 (R.I. 2011) (conviction upheld for breaking and entering despite long-term on-again/off-again relationship and asserted key)
State v. Fleck, 81 A.3d 1129 (R.I. 2014) (discusses standard and sequencing for appellate review of Rule 33 then Rule 29 motions)
State v. Matthews, 111 A.3d 390 (R.I. 2015) (explains trial justice’s role as thirteenth juror and the Rule 33 standard)