State v. Jose Colon, 198 A.3d 1249

Background

Complainant (pseudonym Chris) reported in 2013 that her uncle, Jose Colon, molested her in August 2001 when she was six; indictment returned in 2014 charging first-degree child molestation.
The alleged abuse occurred during a sleepover at defendant’s house; Chris testified defendant touched her vaginally while she lay in a child’s bed.
Years later Chris disclosed to cousins and a boyfriend; the boyfriend’s recounting and later disclosures by cousin Kara and sister Zoe prompted the criminal prosecution.
The state sought and the trial justice granted a Rule 404(b) in limine motion to admit evidence of similar conduct against Zoe as part of a common scheme/plan and to explain delayed disclosure; limiting instructions were given to the jury.
At trial Zoe testified that defendant touched her on a separate occasion; Kara recanted prior statements implicating her father; defense cross-examination was curtailed in places and Chris’s former boyfriend Vigo testified to Chris’s out-of-court confession.
Defendant was convicted; he appealed arguing improper admission of other-acts evidence (Rules 403/404(b)), undue limitation of cross-examination, and erroneous admission of hearsay/prior statements (Rule 801(d)(1)(A)).

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Colon's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-acts (404(b)) evidence (Zoe)	Evidence of Zoe’s abuse is interwoven with Chris’s allegations and explains delayed disclosure; probative of plan/scheme	Admission was prejudicial propensity evidence in violation of Rules 403/404(b)	Waived by failure to timely renew objection at trial; in any event admissible as interwoven and trial court gave limiting instructions; no abuse of discretion
Limitation of cross-examination of Kara	Objections to certain questions were proper; trial court reasonably limited scope	Limiting questions prevented probing who influenced Kara to fabricate and infringed confrontation rights	Error not preserved (no offer of proof or rephrasing); if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because testimony was cumulative and inference was already in record
Admission of Vigo’s testimony recounting Chris’s statement (Rule 801(d)(1)(A))	Offered as prior inconsistent statement of complainant (non-hearsay justification)	Testimony was hearsay/impermissible bolstering	Waived by general objection at trial; defendant failed to state specific ground so argument not preserved; no abuse of discretion shown
Preservation/raise-or-waive doctrine applicability	Court must be allowed to rule in context; objections should be timely and specific	Contends rulings were erroneous despite lack of specific objections	Court enforces raise-or-waive; exceptions for constitutional error reviewed for harmlessness; here objections were waived or harmless

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191 (R.I. 2012) (404(b) generally prohibits propensity evidence but allows interwoven-crimes exceptions and requires limiting instruction)
State v. John, 881 A.2d 920 (R.I. 2005) (other-crimes evidence admissible to show intent, plan, or scheme)
State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012) (motions in limine are preliminary; trial context controls admissibility)
State v. Pona, 948 A.2d 941 (R.I. 2008) (other-crimes evidence may be necessary for a coherent story)
State v. Buchanan, 81 A.3d 1119 (R.I. 2014) (trial justice has discretion to admit, exclude, or limit other-acts evidence)
State v. Hazard, 785 A.2d 1111 (R.I. 2001) (harmless-error factors for limits on cross-examination)
State v. Moore, 154 A.3d 472 (R.I. 2017) (review of claimed improper limitation of cross-examination examines abuse of discretion)
State v. Alston, 47 A.3d 234 (R.I. 2012) (defendant must offer proof or rephrase when cross-examination is limited)
State v. Florez, 138 A.3d 789 (R.I. 2016) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion and prejudice)
State v. Cavanaugh, 158 A.3d 268 (R.I. 2017) (court will not find abuse of discretion if record supports ruling)
State v. Clay, 79 A.3d 832 (R.I. 2013) (standards for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2004) (raise-or-waive rule for appellate review)
State v. Toole, 640 A.2d 965 (R.I. 1994) (general objections insufficient to preserve specific evidentiary claims)
State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631 (R.I. 2006) (Rule 103(a)(1) requires specific trial objection to preserve issues)
State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101 (R.I. 1999) (issues not preserved by specific objection generally cannot be considered on appeal)
State v. Cook, 45 A.3d 1272 (R.I. 2012) (preservation requirements for appellate review)
State v. Merced, 933 A.2d 172 (R.I. 2007) (same)