State v. Jose Lopez, 129 A.3d 77

Background

On December 1, 2012, Jose Lopez allegedly pulled a gun at a Providence housing complex, shot Jorge Semidey in the leg, and pointed the gun at Maribel Bonet-Perez while pulling the trigger multiple times; Damaris Torres was a corroborating eyewitness.
Police encountered Lopez shortly after the incident, observed him discard a firearm, and arrested him; officers recovered eight 9mm casings and a 9mm handgun at the scene.
Lopez was charged with multiple counts; the State dismissed several counts and tried him on five counts, including assault with a dangerous weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, and firearm-enhanced offenses.
A jury convicted Lopez on all counts submitted; the trial justice imposed consecutive and concurrent multi-year sentences, including portions without parole.
Lopez moved for a new trial arguing the eyewitnesses’ testimony was internally inconsistent and the forensic ballistics were inconclusive; the trial justice denied the motion after applying the three-step new-trial analysis and finding the witnesses credible.
Lopez appealed the denial, arguing the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence (witness inconsistencies and inconclusive ballistics linking the recovered gun to the casings).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial justice properly applied the new-trial (weight of evidence) standard	State: trial justice correctly acted as thirteenth juror, assessed credibility, and found verdict reasonable	Lopez: trial justice erred by crediting witnesses despite material inconsistencies and inconclusive ballistics	Affirmed: trial justice followed required three-step analysis and verdict was supported/reasonable
Whether testimonial inconsistencies required finding eyewitnesses not credible	State: minor, de minimis inconsistencies do not destroy core testimony identifying Lopez as shooter	Lopez: numerous conflicts between Bonet-Perez and Torres undermine their reliability	Held: inconsistencies were minor; trial justice’s credibility determinations entitled to deference
Whether inconclusive firearms analysis negates weight of evidence	State: eyewitness identification and police encounter provide sufficient proof despite inconclusive ballistics	Lopez: inability to forensically link the gun to casings makes weapon evidence insignificant	Held: trial justice did not err in relying on eyewitness and other evidence; appellate review deferential though trial justice did not explicitly address ballistics
Whether appellate court should overturn trial justice absent clear error	State: trial justice observed witnesses and explained reasoning; denial should stand	Lopez: trial justice misconceived material evidence warranting new trial	Held: appellate court defers unless trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence; no such error found, so denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fleck, 81 A.3d 1129 (describing three-step new-trial analysis for weight-of-evidence claims)
State v. Gonzalez, 56 A.3d 96 (standards for denying motion for new trial and deference to trial justice)
State v. Hie, 93 A.3d 963 (trial justice’s role in weighing credibility and evidence)
State v. Robat, 49 A.3d 58 (trial justice must cite enough reasoning to permit appellate review)
State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467 (deference to trial justice who observed witness demeanor)
State v. Garrett, 91 A.3d 793 (burden on appellant to show trial justice failed to apply standards)
State v. Rosario, 35 A.3d 938 (considering evidence in light of jury charge when ruling new trial)
State v. Jensen, 40 A.3d 771 (minor inconsistencies do not automatically destroy witness credibility)
State v. Virola, 115 A.3d 980 (appellate standard for reviewing new-trial denials)