State v. Jeffrey Martin
68 A.3d 467
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Jeffrey Martin was convicted by jury of first-degree sexual assault (digital-vaginal penetration).
- Samantha testified that the assault involved nonconsensual acts and ongoing resistance; the defense claimed consent or mistake of fact.
- Ms. Benson testified about Samantha’s telephone conversation shortly after the events; the defense challenged its admissibility as hearsay.
- Grand jury proceedings led to an indictment for first-degree sexual assault and assault with intent; motion to dismiss based on irregularities was denied.
- Trial addressed consent instruction, excited-utterance hearsay exception for Benson’s testimony, and grand jury irregularities; the court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent defense instruction proper? | State argues no consent issue; no evidence supports consent. | Martin argues jury should be instructed on consent/mistake of fact. | No reversible error; instruction adequate and consent not raised by evidence. |
| Admissibility of Benson testimony (excited utterance) | State contends Benson testimony fits excited utterance and is nonprejudicial. | Martin argues it is hearsay and unduly bolstering. | Accepted as excited utterance; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Grand juries irregularities and dismissal | State contends defects harmless since petit jury verdict supports guilt. | Martin asserts due-process violation requiring dismissal. | Harmless error; indictment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467 (R.I. 2010) (consent not required as explicit element; adequate force/coercion instruction suffices)
- State v. Lynch, 19 A.3d 51 (R.I. 2011) (lack of consent is defense, not element; State must prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Rushlow, 32 A.3d 892 (R.I. 2011) (bolstering concerns when police testimony comments on credibility)
- State v. DiChristofaro, 848 A.2d 1127 (R.I. 2004) (instructional accuracy; avoid misleading jury)
- State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (R.I. 2005) (self-defense instructions; evidence sufficiency for instruction)