State v. Jack Gregson, 113 A.3d 393

Background

In summer–fall 2011, defendant Jack Gregson, the victim’s grandfather, engaged in a series of sexualized contacts with his 15‑year‑old granddaughter ("Grace"): oral penetration while she was asleep, unwanted touching, propositions for sex, and giving her alcohol. Grace ultimately disclosed the incidents after receiving sexually explicit texts from defendant referencing a younger cousin.
Defendant was indicted on one count of first‑degree sexual assault, three counts of second‑degree sexual assault, and two counts of indecent solicitation of a minor; two second‑degree counts were amended pretrial to assault with intent to commit second‑degree sexual assault.
At issue pretrial was defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars asking the State to specify which theory (physically helpless, force/coercion, or knowledge of victim’s incapacity) it intended to prove for the sexual‑assault charges.
The trial justice denied the motion for an additional bill of particulars and ultimately charged the jury only on the physically‑helpless theory; the jury convicted on all counts. Defendant moved for a new trial, which the trial justice denied.
On appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Gregson argued reversal was required because (1) he lacked adequate notice from the State (bill of particulars issue) and (2) the trial justice erred in denying the new‑trial motion. The Supreme Court affirmed convictions but remanded to correct a clerical error in the final judgment reflecting the amended counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gregson)	Held
Whether trial justice abused discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars requiring the State to elect which statutory theory it would pursue	The State argued it provided adequate notice that it would proceed under multiple theories (physically helpless and force/coercion) and need not elect before trial	Gregson argued he lacked adequate notice which element would be pursued and thus could not prepare targeted cross‑examination or defense	The Court held no abuse of discretion: State may present evidence on multiple, non‑exclusive theories and was not required to elect pretrial; defendant had adequate notice
Whether failure to instruct jury on alternative theory (force/coercion) or to specify which element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt required reversal	The State did not object to the jury instructions and argued the charge as given was proper	Gregson argued he was entitled to clearer instruction which theory jury had to unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt	The Court deemed the claim waived (defense failed to preserve objection at charge conference) and found no reversible error
Whether the trial justice erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based on weight/credibility of evidence	State argued the evidence (victim testimony, texts, offers of money, intoxication, touching, oral penetration) was credible and sufficient	Gregson argued verdict was against the weight of evidence and that trial justice should have granted a new trial	The Court upheld the trial justice’s denial: he acted as thirteenth juror, reviewed credibility and weight, and reasonably found sufficient credible evidence
Whether clerical errors in final judgment require remand	State did not oppose correction	Gregson raised clerical discrepancy (amended counts not reflected)	The Court remanded to correct the final judgment to reflect the amended counts

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rivera, 987 A.2d 887 (discusses purpose of bill of particulars to avoid prejudicial surprise)
State v. LaChapelle, 638 A.2d 525 (bill of particulars function and discretion of trial justice)
State v. Oster, 922 A.2d 151 (scope of Rule 16 disclosures and not using them to exclude evidence)
State v. Waite, 484 A.2d 887 (no pretrial election required when multiple theories supported by facts)
State v. Marmolejos, 990 A.2d 848 (prosecutor may present evidence on elements in its case in chief)