State v. Jonathan Phillips, 244 A.3d 897

Defendant Jonathan Phillips lived with Palma Sardinha and her children (Hillary and Anthony) from 2010; Katie (Hillary’s cousin) frequently slept over. Alleged molestations occurred between 2011–2013.
Katie and Hillary later disclosed a series of sexual assaults and molestations by Phillips, including fondling, oral sex, digital and penile penetration. Initial partial disclosures occurred in 2013; fuller disclosures were made in 2015.
Phillips was charged in two actions (2014 information and 2016 indictment); cases were consolidated for trial. Several counts were dismissed pretrial.
Jury convicted Phillips in 2018 on multiple counts of first- and second-degree child molestation and second-degree child abuse. Trial justice denied a motion for new trial and sentenced Phillips to a cumulative term of 125 years with a portion to serve.
On appeal Phillips argued (1) the trial justice erred in denying his new-trial motion by overlooking witness inconsistencies and bias, and (2) Rule 404(b) evidence was admitted without an adequate limiting instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Phillips)	Held
Whether trial justice erred in denying motion for new trial based on credibility/weight of evidence	Trial justice properly acted as "thirteenth juror," reviewed inconsistencies, found complainants credible, and would reach same verdict	Trial justice overlooked inconsistencies, delays in disclosure, and motives to fabricate; verdict against weight of evidence	Affirmed — trial justice performed independent review, credited witnesses, and did not misconceive material evidence
Whether admission of uncharged acts under Rule 404(b) lacked a proper limiting instruction	State sought 404(b) evidence for motive, intent, plan, lewd disposition; trial justice provided limiting instructions before, during, and after testimony	Limiting instructions were insufficient and 404(b) evidence prejudicial; counsel preserved objection on appeal	Affirmed — defendant waived appellate review by failing to object at trial and affirmatively accepting limiting instructions; raise-or-waive rule applies

State v. Paola, 59 A.3d 99 (R.I. 2013) (trial-justice duties when considering a new-trial motion)
State v. Perkins, 966 A.2d 1257 (R.I. 2009) (trial justice acts as thirteenth juror)
State v. Rogers, 207 A.3d 457 (R.I. 2019) (deference to trial-justice reasoning when articulated)
State v. Moten, 187 A.3d 1080 (R.I. 2018) (deference to credibility findings of trial justice)
State v. Viveiros, 45 A.3d 1232 (R.I. 2012) (raise-or-waive rule for appellate review of trial objections)
State v. Crow, 871 A.2d 930 (R.I. 2005) (requirement to object to jury instructions before jury retires)
State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008) (raise-or-waive principle)
State v. Hanes, 783 A.2d 920 (R.I. 2001) (purpose of timely objection to allow cure)