State v. Francisco Diaz
159 A.3d 1053
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Francisco Diaz was convicted by a jury (April 17, 2015) of multiple offenses arising from an April 23, 2014 shooting that injured Theodora Nunez and an earlier knife threat incident involving her daughter Jessica Nunez.
- Jessica testified that two weeks before the shooting Diaz threatened her with a knife, later returned, and on April 23 aimed a gun during a confrontation on the porch/inside the Nunez home; she described a struggle and hearing a trigger click before Theodora was shot.
- Theodora testified that she was shot while facing Diaz and described the gun’s position relative to Jessica differently in some respects from Jessica’s account.
- Medical testimony and records contained inconsistent entries about whether the wound was to the chest or back; the treating surgeon could not be certain of entry/exit direction.
- Diaz moved for a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, arguing witness inconsistencies, medical contradictions, and lack of motive; the trial justice denied the motion, concluding the evidence supported the verdict and that the jury reasonably rejected accident as a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Diaz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial justice properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence | The trial justice correctly acted as the thirteenth juror, weighed credibility, and concluded the evidence (including prior knife threat, a pre-shooting apology text, witness testimony, defendant’s conduct after the shooting) supported the jury verdict | Witness testimony was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with each other; medical records contradicted testimony about wound location; no clear motive—thus verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Affirmed. Trial justice performed required three-step analysis, credited testimony that defendant aimed and fired, and did not err in denying new trial |
| Whether inconsistencies in witness testimony required a new trial | State: inconsistencies were immaterial to the critical issue that Diaz fired at Theodora and intended harm | Diaz: multiple discrepancies (police/grand jury statements, differing accounts between Jessica and Theodora) undermined credibility | Held that some inconsistencies are common and do not automatically destroy credibility; trial justice reasonably resolved them |
| Whether medical evidence disproved eyewitness testimony about wound location | State: medical records and surgeon testimony were not conclusive and did not outweigh the eyewitness accounts | Diaz: records and doctor’s uncertainty showed Theodora may have been shot in the back, contradicting key testimony | Held that trial justice could weigh conflicting medical and testimonial evidence and reasonably found testimony that Theodora was shot in the chest credible |
| Whether trial justice properly applied standards for motions for new trial | State: trial justice applied Silva/Muralles framework, assessed credibility, and declined to reweigh to reach a different result | Diaz: trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence and thereby committed clear error | Held that the trial justice complied with the three-step analysis, articulated sufficient reasons, and did not commit clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Muralles v. State, 154 A.3d 925 (R.I. 2017) (trial justice serves as thirteenth juror; deference to credibility findings)
- Silva v. State, 84 A.3d 411 (R.I. 2014) (three-step framework for new-trial-on-weight analysis)
- Robat v. State, 49 A.3d 58 (R.I. 2012) (when trial justice disagrees, must determine whether verdict is against fair preponderance of evidence)
- Morales v. State, 895 A.2d 114 (R.I. 2006) (trial justice’s weighing of evidence and sentencing record issues)
- Paola v. State, 59 A.3d 99 (R.I. 2013) (deference to trial justice present through trial)
- Jimenez v. State, 33 A.3d 724 (R.I. 2011) (disagreement with credibility determinations is not alone a basis for new trial)