State v. Jesus Danilo Fuentes, 162 A.3d 638

Victim Henry Vargas was fatally shot outside Club Platinum in Providence on Nov. 6, 2009; his girlfriend Carmelina (Carmen) Bueno was the sole eyewitness.
Bueno testified she saw the shooter for several seconds, identified him at a photo array (circle no. 3) about three weeks after the incident, and later identified defendant Jesus Danilo Fuentes in court.
Bueno’s descriptions and prior statements contained inconsistencies (race/skin tone, who she initially suspected, comments about DJ Nelson, fear-related statements).
Defendant was indicted on first-degree murder and discharging a firearm causing death; convicted after a jury trial in June 2011 and sentenced to consecutive life terms.
At trial defendant requested a jury instruction on eyewitness identification taken verbatim from State v. Werner; the trial justice refused but gave general credibility and burden-of-proof instructions.
Defendant appealed, arguing the refusal to give the Werner eyewitness-identification instruction was reversible error.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial justice erred in refusing to give the Werner eyewitness-identification instruction	No; at the time of trial specific identification instructions were not mandatory and the given instructions adequately covered the law	Werner instruction was necessary because Bueno’s ID was unreliable and jurors needed specific guidance to weigh eyewitness testimony	The refusal was not erroneous; the trial justice adequately instructed jurors on credibility and reasonable doubt
Whether Bueno’s inconsistent statements required special instruction or expert testimony on ID reliability	No; discretion to deny special instruction/expert absent necessity	Yes; inconsistencies and stress warranted the Werner language or expert evidence	Court found no abuse of discretion in declining the requested Werner instruction; trial justice covered credibility factors
Whether failure to give Werner instruction prejudiced defendant	No; jury was properly instructed on assessing witness credibility and reasonable doubt	Yes; omission gravely prejudiced defendant’s ability to challenge ID	No prejudice shown; conviction affirmed
Whether Davis (more recent guidance) should apply retroactively to require Werner-type instructions	State: Davis not applicable retroactively to 2011 trial	Defendant: later authority underscores need for such instructions	Court declined to apply Davis retroactively and relied on law existing at trial; outcome unaffected

State v. Werner, 851 A.2d 1093 (R.I. 2004) (discussed language advising jurors about eyewitness identification fallibility)
State v. Davis, 131 A.3d 679 (R.I. 2016) (noted evolving concern and recommended more comprehensive eyewitness instructions)
State v. Payette, 557 A.2d 71 (R.I. 1989) (specific identification instruction not mandatory; failure to give it is not reversible error)
State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467 (R.I. 2010) (trial justice not required to use defendant’s exact requested wording so long as law is adequately covered)
State v. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2007) (jury-instruction review is de novo; consider instructions as whole)
State v. Sivo, 925 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2007) (reversal for erroneous instruction only if prejudice shown)
State v. Cardona, 969 A.2d 667 (R.I. 2009) (instructions must be read in context to determine jurors’ understanding)