State v. John Cavanaugh, 158 A.3d 268

Background

Victim Danielle reported in 2013 that her uncle John Cavanaugh sexually abused her between ages ~6–15; indictment returned January 2014 charging 1 count first‑degree sexual assault and 4 counts second‑degree child molestation; jury convicted after November 2014 trial.
Alleged assaults began at a family cookout when Danielle (8–10) said Cavanaugh touched her vaginal area over her bathing suit; she also testified she saw him do the same to a family friend, Rosemary, who could not be located.
Additional incidents: touching under clothing with cousin present (blanket incident), touching breasts/upshirt during a movie when ~13, and digital penetration at ~15 (first‑degree charge).
Defense testified and denied the allegations; family became estranged after initial disclosure; defendant’s wife and son did not give statements to police.
Trial court admitted Danielle’s testimony about seeing Cavanaugh touch Rosemary under Rule 404(b), denied motions to strike/mistrial over references to wife/son and prosecutor’s closing, and denied judgment of acquittal on two counts; Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Failure to strike testimony about defendant’s post‑allegation interactions with family & adequacy of cautionary instruction	State: cross‑examination and closing remarks about defendant’s interactions with wife/son were permissible impeachment and fair comment; jury was properly instructed on burden.	Cavanaugh: questioning and prosecutor’s closing implied defendant had burden to produce witnesses/evidence and prejudiced jury; requested mistrial/strike.	Court: No reversible error—defendant opened the door by volunteering testimony, objections were untimely/waived in part, and the trial judge’s cautionary instructions cured any prejudice.
2. Motion to pass/mistrial for “empty chair” comments	State: prosecutor’s remarks were reasonable inferences about defendant’s actions and permissible response to defense argument.	Cavanaugh: prosecutor improperly suggested defendant’s failure to present witnesses (empty chair), warranting mistrial.	Court: Prosecutor did not cross line into forbidden empty‑chair argument; remarks were responsive to defense and cured by instructions; mistrial properly denied.
3. Admission of Danielle’s testimony that she saw defendant touch Rosemary (Rule 404(b))	State: testimony of contemporaneous, similar assault on Rosemary admissible as nonremote, similar prior misconduct relevant to intent/pattern and necessary because credibility was central.	Cavanaugh: testimony was uncorroborated (Rosemary unavailable), unfairly prejudicial and effectively self‑corroboration by complainant.	Court: Admissible under Rule 404(b) (high similarity and nonremoteness); Rule 403 balancing error (judge did not expressly conduct balancing) harmless; limiting instruction given, so no reversal.
4. Motion for judgment of acquittal on counts 4 & 5 (lack of explicit testimony of vaginal touching)	State: testimony describing repeated behavior ("doing the same thing as the other times") supplied the necessary specificity to link touching to intimate parts.	Cavanaugh: victim did not explicitly say for those counts that his hand touched her vagina; acquittal required.	Court: Denial proper—victim’s testimony referenced earlier specific description of vaginal touching; viewed in context, a reasonable jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Peltier, 116 A.3d 150 (R.I. 2015) (admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Clay, 79 A.3d 832 (R.I. 2013) (deference to trial justice on Rule 404(b) admissions)
State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (mistrial/motion to pass lies within trial court discretion)
State v. Barkmeyer, 949 A.2d 984 (R.I. 2008) (trial justice’s front‑row seat—deference to rulings on prejudice)
State v. Long, 61 A.3d 439 (R.I. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
State v. D’Alo, 435 A.2d 317 (R.I. 1981) (testifying defendant places credibility at issue)
State v. Mohapatra, 880 A.2d 802 (R.I. 2005) (prior similar sexual misconduct admissible when nonremote and necessary)
State v. Brigham, 638 A.2d 1043 (R.I. 1994) (factors for nonremoteness and similarity in sexual‑misconduct evidence)
State v. Taylor, 425 A.2d 1231 (R.I. 1981) (prohibits prosecutorial comment on defendant’s failure to present witnesses)
State v. McDonald, 602 A.2d 923 (R.I. 1992) (requirement that testimony be precise and specific in sexual‑assault prosecutions)