State v. José Gonzalez
56 A.3d 96
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Gonzalez is charged with one count of first degree child molestation and three counts of second degree child molestation for acts alleged on June 30, 2007; count 3 was dismissed by the trial court.
- The great-uncle relationship colored the credibility questions and the defense focused on witness reliability and alleged inconsistencies.
- Trial began June 29, 2010; the State presented four witnesses (the complaining witness, her father, a police lieutenant, and a pediatrician); Gonzalez did not testify.
- The jury was instructed on credibility and the testimony was primarily from the child and her father, with corroboration from the officer’s observations.
- The jury found Gonzalez guilty on all three counts submitted to the jury; a Rule 33 motion for a new trial was denied; Gonzalez was sentenced March 4, 2011.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the new trial for abuse of discretion, affirming the trial court’s credibility determinations and application of the three-step test for a thirteenth juror
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied the Rule 33 motion | State argues witnesses credible; weight of testimony supports verdict | Gonzalez asserts lack of credibility and inconsistency in the evidence | Denied; credibility supported verdict |
| Whether the trial court correctly applied the thirteenth juror standard | State contends three-step analysis was correctly applied | Gonzalez contends misapplication of the standard | Applied correctly; no clear error |
| Whether the credibility determinations sustain the verdict given the evidence | State relies on corroboration and demeanor of witnesses | Gonzalez challenges witness reliability | Credibility supported verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robat, 49 A.3d 58 (R.I. 2012) (thirteenth juror framework and credibility review)
- State v. Viveiros, 45 A.3d 1232 (R.I. 2012) (three-step credibility analysis for new-trial motions)
- State v. Bunnell, 47 A.3d 220 (R.I. 2012) (limits on granting new trials where reasonable minds differ)
- State v. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2007) (standard for reviewing motion for new trial)
- State v. Rosario, 35 A.3d 938 (R.I. 2012) (deferential review of credibility determinations)
- State v. Jensen, 40 A.3d 771 (R.I. 2012) (consistency of witness utterances does not ipso facto negate credibility)
- State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467 (R.I. 2010) (trial court’s firsthand observation warrants deference)
- State v. Ferreira, 21 A.3d 355 (R.I. 2011) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132 (R.I. 2008) (affirmative deference for trial-court reasoning)