79 A.3d 32
R.I.2013Background
- Drew was convicted of first-degree murder, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, and three counts of entering a dwelling with intent to commit larceny; conviction AFFIRMED on direct appeal in 2007.
- Drew filed a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence regarding a cooperation narrative about Dumont not being charged in Massachusetts B&E offenses.
- Det. Ryan’s May 17, 2004 Swansea narrative suggested a cooperation arrangement that Dumont would not be charged for Massachusetts breaks; the state contends this was not newly discovered.
- Dumont had a Rhode Island cooperation agreement—plea to heroin and B&E charges—in exchange for truthful testimony in murder-related prosecutions; she identified numerous houses in RI and MA.
- Trial and appellate record showed prior disclosure of Dumont’s agreement and statements, and defense cross-examined witnesses on the Massachusetts breaks and Dumont’s immunity.
- Superior Court denied the Rule 33 motion, ruling the evidence either not newly discovered or not material; state court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the newly discovered evidence meets Rule 33’s prong test | Drew argues new, material evidence exists about an undisclosed agreement | State maintains evidence not newly discovered and is cumulative | No error; evidence fails first prong; no new-trial warranted |
| Whether the state violated Brady by not disclosing Dumont’s broader cooperation | Drew claims due-process violation from undisclosed cooperation | State argues no new or undisclosed facts beyond what was already provided | No due-process violation; Ryan narrative notes nothing new beyond disclosed information |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Price, 66 A.3d 406 (R.I. 2013) (standard for reviewing Rule 33 new-trial decisions; deference to trial court on factual findings; de novo for constitutional issues)
- State v. Hazard, 797 A.2d 448 (R.I. 2002) (principles governing sufficiency of newly discovered evidence and standard of review)
- State v. Woods, 936 A.2d 195 (R.I. 2007) (two-prong test for Rule 33 motions based on newly discovered evidence; materiality and possibility to change verdict)
- Richards v. Fiore, 57 A.3d 254 (R.I. 2012) (de novo review with respect to constitutional questions while deferring to factual findings)
- DeCiantis v. State, 24 A.3d 557 (R.I. 2011) (guidance on deference to trial court’s factual findings in constitutional review)
- McManus v. State, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008) ( Brady disclosure framework and materiality to guilt or punishment)