State v. Hakim Funches, 160 A.3d 981

Victim Jennifer Bacon and defendant Hakim Funches had a long-term relationship and two children; they disputed whether they lived together in 2012.
On Oct. 23, 2012, after text/phone argument, Bacon returned home in the early morning and testified that Funches violently assaulted her: slammed her into a table, hit her head on tile, dragged her by hair, repeatedly choked her with a jump rope for about an hour, pushed her down stairs, and she fled to the police station.
Bacon testified she nearly lost consciousness from choking; officers returned to the apartment and arrested Funches.
Funches denied assault, testifying the argument ended with Bacon leaving; he disputed the violent account.
A jury convicted Funches of domestic assault by strangulation (G.L. 1956 § 11-5-2.3) and simple assault (§ 11-5-3); acquitted him of assault with a dangerous weapon (the jump rope). He was sentenced to 10 years, with 3 years to serve and 7 years suspended.
On appeal, Funches argued the prosecutor’s cross-examination question about naked photos on his phone required a mistrial and that his acquittal and conviction on related counts violated double jeopardy/required judgment of acquittal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s question about "naked pictures" required passing the case/mistrial	Question was for impeachment; not highly prejudicial; cured by sustaining objection and jury instruction	Question was improper and prejudicial; warranted passing the case/mistrial	Court held the question was not so inflammatory; trial justice cured prejudice with prompt objection, sustained ruling, and repeated juror admonitions; denial of motion to pass affirmed
Whether conviction for strangulation plus acquittal for assault with a dangerous weapon constitutes double jeopardy / requires judgment of acquittal	State: convictions/acquittals as rendered present no double jeopardy problem; trial procedure proper	Funches: the charges were duplicative—being convicted for strangulation after acquittal on weapon count imposes double jeopardy	Court held double jeopardy not implicated because defendant was convicted of only one offense and acquitted of the other; moreover defendant waived pretrial double jeopardy motion by not raising it under Rule 12(b)(2)

Ordway v. State, 619 A.2d 819 (R.I. 1993) (improper questioning about similar prior bad acts can be highly prejudicial and not always cured by instructions)
Disla v. State, 874 A.2d 190 (R.I. 2005) (presumption that jurors follow trial court’s cautionary instructions absent evidence to the contrary)
Dubois v. State, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (mistrial and passing-the-case decisions rest within trial justice’s discretion)
Kholi v. State, 672 A.2d 429 (R.I. 1996) (Rule 404(b)-type concerns: questions about other acts require a substantial nexus to charged offense)
Matthews v. State, 88 A.3d 375 (R.I. 2014) (double jeopardy’s protection against multiple punishments is not implicated when there is only a single conviction)