State v. James Paola, 2013 R.I. LEXIS 22

Paola was convicted of multiple sexual offenses involving his stepdaughters Sarah and Samantha: one count of first‑degree child molestation sexual assault and one count of third‑degree sexual assault (Sarah), and one count of second‑degree child molestation sexual assault (Sarah); no conviction on other counts after earlier dismissal.
The trial court denied Paola’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial on November 24, 2008, and Paola was sentenced to concurrent terms with portions suspended and probation.
The Commonwealth presented Sarah’s and Samantha’s credible testimony, corroborated by other witnesses; Paola testified denying any sexual contact.
The State’s case included extensive documentary and testimonial evidence, including notes and gifts Paola gave to Sarah, and Paola’s conduct and communications signaling an ongoing, inappropriate relationship.
Paola challenged the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion on credibility and weight grounds, arguing inconsistencies and the court’s deference to witnesses.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, applying a deferential standard of review to the trial judge’s credibility determinations and upholding the denial of the new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the denial of the new-trial motion proper?	The State argues the evidence was compelling and credible, supporting the verdict.	Paola contends the trial judge erred by misapprehending or undervaluing material evidence and credibility.	No error; denial affirmed.
Did the trial court properly apply the thirteenth juror standard?	The judge independently evaluated credibility and weighed the evidence.	The defense claims errors in credibility assessment.	Yes; proper application, deference to trial court affirmed.
Were the witnesses’ testimonies properly credited and corroborated?	Testimony of Sarah and Samantha was credible and corroborated by others.	Defendant argues credibility determinations favored the State improperly.	Credibility determinations supported by record; no new-trial error.
Did the court overlook or misconstrue material evidence?	The State maintains no overlooked material evidence.	Paola asserts material evidence was misconceived.	No; court conducted thorough review and did not overlook material evidence.

State v. Smith, 39 A.3d 669 (R.I. 2012) (credibility determinations afforded great deference to trial judge)
State v. Vargas, 21 A.3d 347 (R.I. 2011) (thirteenth-juror standard for weight of evidence)
State v. Heredia, 10 A.3d 443 (R.I. 2010) (deferential review of credibility determinations)
State v. Luanglath, 749 A.2d 1 (R.I. 2000) (judge’s witness credibility evaluation given deference)
State v. Medeiros, 996 A.2d 115 (R.I. 2010) (credibility and weight treated with deference to trial court)
State v. Ferreira, 21 A.3d 355 (R.I. 2011) (affirming credibility determinations on appeal)