State v. Jimenez, 2011 R.I. LEXIS 148

Carlos Jimenez was indicted on two counts of first-degree sexual assault involving Mary, his sister-in-law, alleging vaginal/penile penetration and cunnilingus while physically helpless.
Pre-trial, Jimenez moved to suppress oral and written statements to police; motion was denied and trial began May 28, 2009.
Mary testified she was heavily intoxicated at a July 14, 2007 party and described being raped in the basement while her child was present; Jimenez offered a different account at trial.
On July 16, 2007, at his mother-in-law’s apartment, police questioned Jimenez; he later provided a written Spanish statement admitting removal of shorts and kissing Mary, but denying penetration.
At the Cranston police station, Jimenez was given Miranda warnings in Spanish, waived them, and a detective interrogation lasted about an hour, ending with a written statement memorialized in English translation.
A motion for acquittal on count 1 was denied; a motion for a new trial was denied after independent credibility review; the Superior Court judgment was appealed and ultimately affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements were properly suppressed as custodial interrogation	Jimenez contends custodial interrogation at mother-in-law’s and lack of Miranda warnings require suppression.	Jimenez argues the setting was custodial and the rights were not properly explained or waived.	No custody at mother-in-law’s; Miranda warnings not required then; later waiver valid.
Whether Miranda rights were knowingly and intelligently waived at the police station	State failed to prove knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver given language barriers and coercive circumstances.	Jimenez argues he did not understand rights and was pressured, so waiver was invalid.	Waiver found knowing and intelligent; adequate warnings in Spanish; record supports voluntary waiver.
Whether denial of judgment of acquittal on count 1 was proper	Evidence supported penetration beyond reasonable doubt.	Mary’s testimony uncertain; lack of scientific proof undermines proof of penetration.	Preservation issue; review not available because defense did not renew; affirmed denial.
Whether the denial of the motion for a new trial was proper	Jury verdict supported by credibility and corroboration; no miscarriage of justice.	Mary’s intoxication and lack of DNA evidence undermine credibility and verdict.	Trial judge acted as thirteenth juror; credibility findings supported; denial affirmed.

State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (R.I. 2005) (defer to trial judge on facts; de novo review on law)
State v. Apalakis, 797 A.2d 440 (R.I. 2002) (standard for mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Hobson, 648 A.2d 1369 (R.I. 1994) (Miranda custody trigger; custody-focused analysis)
State v. Marini, 638 A.2d 507 (R.I. 1994) (custody determination factors)
State v. Diaz, 654 A.2d 1195 (R.I. 1995) (voluntariness factors in custody assessment)
Leuthavone, 640 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1994) (two-pronged test for waiver: voluntariness and awareness)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (undefined but understood waiver requires understanding and voluntary act)
Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1987) (knowingly and intelligently waiving rights not requiring perfect understanding)