State v. Jason Nickerson
94 A.3d 1116
R.I.2014Background
- Victim ("Emma"), age 16, was assaulted on June 30, 2007: extensive facial and neck injuries, alleged vaginal, anal, digital, and oral penetration; forensic kit collected at hospital.
- Sperm detected on underwear; DNA profile developed from underwear sample and entered into CODIS in Nov. 2007 with no initial hit.
- In Jan. 2011, CODIS produced a match to Jason Nickerson; buccal swab from Nickerson matched underwear DNA.
- Nickerson admitted to a prior consensual sexual encounter with the complainant earlier in the week but denied involvement in the June 30 attack and asserted an alibi.
- Defense complained of late disclosure of a Department of Health analyst’s handwritten bench notes (Mallard) and moved to exclude her testimony; trial justice allowed testimony and denied motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial.
- Jury convicted Nickerson of four counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of felony assault and battery; state sentencing affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether late disclosure of lab analyst Mallard’s bench notes violated Rule 16 discovery | State: notes were provided immediately upon receipt; defense had Mallard’s report and chance to review; nondisclosure inadvertent and not prejudicial | Nickerson: late production deprived defense of ability to consult experts and prepare cross-examination; notes could be exculpatory (age/quantity of sperm) | Court: No Rule 16 violation; nondisclosure inadvertent, defense had Mallard’s conclusions and time to review; no demonstrated prejudice |
| Whether nondisclosure violated due process (Brady) | State: notes not exculpatory or material; defense had substantive findings beforehand | Nickerson: notes potentially favorable and material; suppressed evidence undermining reliability | Court: No Brady violation; notes would not likely have changed result; defense had opportunity to exploit Mallard’s admissions at trial |
| Sufficiency of evidence / identity of perpetrator | State: victim testimony corroborated by injuries, medical findings, and DNA match to Nickerson—establishes identity beyond reasonable doubt | Nickerson: victim failed to identify him in photo arrays; chain of custody and testing delays raise contamination/tampering issues; defense offered consent/alibi | Court: Evidence sufficient; trial justice (as thirteenth juror) found victim credible, chain of custody reliable, and DNA evidence linked defendant beyond reasonable doubt |
| Chain of custody challenge to admissibility of DNA evidence | State: proper handling shown; no indication of tampering; only underwear sample tested at ReliaGene with intact chain | Nickerson: unexplained delay and missing garments undermine continuity and reliability | Court: No fatal break; state showed in "all reasonable probability" evidence not tampered with; admission proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008) (discussing Rule 16 and discovery purpose)
- State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735 (R.I. 2005) (trial justice discretion in remedial measures for discovery violations)
- State v. Stravato, 935 A.2d 948 (R.I. 2007) (factors for assessing Rule 16 nondisclosure)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Burnham, 58 A.3d 889 (R.I. 2013) (defendant’s burden to show reasonable probability of different outcome under Brady)
- State v. Buchanan, 81 A.3d 1119 (R.I. 2014) (standards for reviewing new-trial and acquittal rulings)
- State v. Nelson, 982 A.2d 602 (R.I. 2009) (chain-of-custody standard: admission if, in all reasonable probability, evidence not tampered)