Background

• defendant Raquel Figuereo was convicted of shoplifting in Superior Court after a de novo trial on appeal from District Court.
• Linda Lewis, a loss-prevention agent for Old Navy, testified about surveillance methods and identification of the defendant as a suspect.
• The defense requested an instruction that eyewitness certainty is not reliable; the trial judge declined to add that exact language.
• The jury was instructed on factors affecting identification and was told a witness could be mistaken, albeit without the precise phrasing requested.
• The defendant appealed, arguing error in omitting a specific eyewitness-certainty instruction; the State argued the charge given adequately covered the law.
• The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, applying the raise-or-waive rule and concluding the instructions substantially conveyed the requested principle.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Adefusika v. State, 989 A.2d 467 (R.I. 2010) (instructions must adequately cover the law but need not use exact phrasing)
• Palmer v. State, 962 A.2d 758 (R.I. 2009) (instructions must adequately cover law; exact words not required)
• Imbruglia v. State, 913 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2007) (no error where instructions fairly covered the concept)
• Donato v. State, 592 A.2d 140 (R.I. 1991) (exception to raise-or-waive rule for basic constitutional rights)
• Diefenderfer v. State, 970 A.2d 12 (R.I. 2009) (raise-or-waive rule application in trial-issue scope)