STATE v. Jesse S. PERRY., 182 A.3d 558

Background

Defendant Jesse S. Perry was charged with multiple sexual-assault counts arising from abuse of Adam between ~1990–1999; three counts survived to verdict: two first-degree child molestation (fellatio incidents) and one second-degree child molestation (touching).
The State sought to admit testimony from three men (Brian, Colin, David) about uncharged sexual misconduct by Perry from ~1977–1984 under R.I. R. Evid. 404(b) as evidence of modus operandi, intent, plan, identity, absence of mistake, etc.
The trial justice granted the State’s motion in limine, admitting the 404(b) witnesses after finding similarities in victims’ ages, relationships to defendant (youth sports), locations (defendant’s home), and types of contact (genital touching / “sports massage” context).
After a bench trial the trial justice found the complaining witness and the 404(b) witnesses credible, denied defendant’s Rule 29(b) motion as to counts 1, 3, and 4, and convicted Perry on those counts.
Perry appealed, arguing (1) erroneous admission of Rule 404(b) evidence as too remote and dissimilar and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403; and (2) the trial justice overstepped Rule 29(b) by making credibility determinations mid-trial and effectively deciding guilt before the defense case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Perry)	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) — nonremoteness/similarity	404(b) testimony is nonremote and similar: victims same age range, same relationships (youth sports), same location (defendant’s home), similar acts — probative of plan, intent, identity, absence of mistake	Prior acts occurred ~10–22 years earlier and differ in some respects (oral acts only alleged against Adam); therefore too remote and dissimilar to be admissible	Affirmed: trial justice did not abuse discretion — remoteness outweighed by strong similarities and probative value; 404(b) evidence admitted.
Rule 404(b) — relevance and necessity	Evidence relevant to show specific intent for second-degree molestation and reasonably necessary given lapse of time, private nature of offenses, and credibility contest	Evidence was marginally relevant and served mainly to characterize defendant as a pedophile; not necessary and highly prejudicial	Affirmed: evidence was relevant to intent and reasonably necessary in light of the lapse of time and credibility dispute.
Rule 403 — unfair prejudice vs probative value	Probative value substantially outweighs any unfair prejudice given the similarity and necessity	Probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; record lacks meaningful Rule 403 balancing	Affirmed: trial justice considered Rule 403 and, in a bench trial, was capable of disregarding prejudicial aspects; no abuse of discretion.
Rule 29(b) motion procedure — mid-trial credibility findings	Trial justice properly weighs evidence and may assess credibility when deciding a Rule 29(b) motion in bench trial	Trial justice exceeded Rule 29(b) by making conclusive credibility findings before defense presented its case, depriving Perry of meaningful opportunity to defend	Affirmed: trial justice acted within Rule 29(b) standards for bench trials — weighed evidence, made credibility findings, and properly denied dismissal as to counts 1, 3, and 4.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mohapatra, 880 A.2d 802 (R.I. 2005) (other sexual-misconduct evidence admissible if nonremote and similar)
State v. Rainey, 175 A.3d 1169 (R.I. 2018) (approve admission of similar prior sexual misconduct where nonremote, relevant, and reasonably necessary)
State v. Coningford, 901 A.2d 623 (R.I. 2006) (404(b) evidence admissible to show intent when similar incidents occurred)
State v. Hopkins, 698 A.2d 183 (R.I. 1997) (prior acts admitted despite ten-year lapse where age, relationship, and modus operandi were similar)
State v. Cavanaugh, 158 A.3d 268 (R.I. 2017) (404(b) evidence relevant and necessary when crime was private, occurred long ago, and credibility central)
State v. Mitchell, 80 A.3d 19 (R.I. 2013) (similar incidents admissible to show specific intent in second-degree child molestation)
State v. Jalette, 382 A.2d 526 (R.I. 1978) (trial court must identify specific 404(b) exception relied upon; caution against “scatter-shot” approach)
State v. McKone, 673 A.2d 1068 (R.I. 1996) (in bench trials, trial justice can disregard prejudicial material and may assess credibility on Rule 29(b) motion)
State v. Lamoureux, 623 A.2d 9 (R.I. 1993) (prior acts may show signature modus operandi)
State v. Saluter, 715 A.2d 1250 (R.I. 1998) (duplicity doctrine and joinder considerations)