State v. Ferreira, 2011 R.I. LEXIS 91

John Ferreira was convicted of one count of first-degree child molestation and three counts of second-degree child molestation stemming from sexual abuse of Amy in 2004.
Amy testified that Ferreira repeatedly touched and kissed her intimate area while she was under 14, mostly at night, and that she feared him and often complied.
Amy kept a diary detailing the abuse; diary entries also referenced by others and introduced as evidence.
A CAC interview, police narratives, a recorded controlled call, and various defense and non-testimonial evidence were presented at trial.
Ferreira challenged the new-trial ruling, arguing inconsistencies, lack of context/motives, unaddressed defense witnesses, and reliance on matters not in evidence.
The trial court denied the motion for a new trial; the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews for abuse of discretion with deference to credibility determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inconsistencies undermined the state's case	Ferreira argues the state’s case had material inconsistencies ignored by the trial judge.	Ferreira contends the court failed to acknowledge inconsistencies between CAC testimony, diary entries, and in-court statements.	No reversible error; credibility determinations supported by the record.
Whether the trial judge properly considered the complainant's credibility context and motives	State argued credibility was properly assessed by the trial judge.	Ferreira contends the judge ignored motive to lie and context of her disclosures.	Judge properly weighed credibility; deference given to trial judge.
Whether the trial judge failed to address six defense witnesses and the defendant's testimony	State contends credibility findings did not require exhaustive analysis of every witness.	Ferreira asserts the judge ignored defense witnesses and his testimony.	No error; credibility determinations sufficiently supported.
Whether the decision relied on matters not in evidence	State contends referenced narratives and reports were cumulative or properly admitted.	Ferreira argues the judge relied on non-record materials to prove consistency and guilt.	Harmless error; cumulative evidence and substantial other proof supported guilt.

State v. Prout, 996 A.2d 641 (R.I.2010) (thirteenth juror standard for new-trial motions)
State v. Bergevine, 942 A.2d 974 (R.I.2008) (credibility and weight of evidence deference)
State v. Cerda, 957 A.2d 382 (R.I.2008) (independent appellate review of credibility)
State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759 (R.I.2011) (post-verdict credibility and weight analysis)
State v. Rivera, 839 A.2d 497 (R.I.2003) (new-trial standard—preponderance of evidence)
State v. Banach, 648 A.2d 1363 (R.I.1994) (deference to trial judge in credibility determinations)
State v. Medeiros, 996 A.2d 115 (R.I.2010) (credibility determinations on review)
State v. Guerrero, 996 A.2d 86 (R.I.2010) (deferential review of trial court credibility)
State v. Mondesir, 891 A.2d 856 (R.I.2006) (scope of new-trial appraisal)
State v. Otero, 788 A.2d 469 (R.I.2002) (procedural standards for new-trial review)
State v. Luanglath, 749 A.2d 1 (R.I.2000) (credibility and witness evaluation deference)
State v. Tate, 109 R.I. 586 (1972) (non-lengthy trial- decision; evidentiary approach)
State v. Fortier, 427 A.2d 1317 (R.I.1981) (harmless error for cumulative hearsay evidence)
State v. Robinson, 989 A.2d 965 (R.I.2010) (harmless-error analysis; cumulative testimony)
State v. Golembewski, 808 A.2d 622 (R.I.2002) (harmless error for non-prejudicial evidentiary references)
In re Susan, 122 R.I. 677 (1980) (credibility and implicit-reject approach to witnesses)