State v. Kayborn Brown
2014 R.I. LEXIS 39
| R.I. | 2014Background
- Aug. 4, 2008: Jorge Restrepo was robbed and beaten to death in Central Falls; multiple eyewitnesses described two young black males, one seen holding a distinctive red handgun.
- Aug. 6, 2008: Police chased a white Acura; occupants fled, one (later identified as Kayborn Brown) was seen holding a red handgun; police recovered a red Cobra handgun. Defendant was driving.
- Photo arrays shown to witnesses initially did not include Brown; on Aug. 8 a six-photo array that included Brown was shown and witness Diego Rodriguez identified him.
- Indictment charged ten counts (murder, robbery, conspiracies, firearm offenses, reckless driving, etc.); several counts were dismissed pretrial or acquitted by motion; jury convicted Brown of five counts including first-degree murder and reckless driving.
- On appeal Brown raised: (1) improper joinder under Rule 8(a) and failure to sever under Rule 14; (2) exclusion of a police sketch; (3) admission of three autopsy photos; and (4) denial of a Rule 33 new-trial motion. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Brown's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8(a) joinder of Aug. 4 and Aug. 6 offenses | Joinder proper because the distinctive red gun linked the incidents and evidence overlapped | Incidents were separate in time, place, victims and modus; joinder improper | Affirmed joinder: offenses sufficiently "same or similar" and transactions were connected by common evidence (red gun) |
| Rule 14 severance (prejudice from joinder) | Evidence from Aug. 6 (flight, red gun) would be mutually admissible to show ID or consciousness of guilt; cautionary instruction given | Joinder unfairly cumulated evidence and created propensity inference; gun evidence not essential to charged elements | No abuse of discretion denying severance; prejudice not substantial, evidence likely admissible in separate trials, jury instructions mitigated risk |
| Admission of police sketch (unavailable declarant) | Sketch inadmissible absent declarant to authenticate; no special trustworthiness for catch-all hearsay exception; sketch artist not a proper expert to supply absent-declarant statements | Sketch not hearsay (not a "statement") or admissible under Rule 804(b)(5) or as expert testimony under Rules 702/703 | Affirmed exclusion: lack of authentication/trustworthiness and expert basis; trial justice did not abuse discretion |
| Admission of three autopsy photographs | Photos relevant to medical examiner's explanation of blunt-force injuries and corpus delicti; probative value outweighed prejudice | Photos gruesome and cause of death undisputed, so prejudicial and cumulative under Rule 403 | Affirmed admission: not marginally relevant/overly prejudicial; limiting instructions and probative medical explanation justified inclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Day, 898 A.2d 698 (R.I. 2006) (same-or-similar-character joinder analysis)
- State v. Pereira, 973 A.2d 19 (R.I. 2009) (factors for assessing joinder and Rule 14 prejudice balancing)
- State v. Kluth, 46 A.3d 867 (R.I. 2012) (de novo review for Rule 8 joinder; abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 14)
- State v. Hernandez, 822 A.2d 915 (R.I. 2003) (joinder upheld for related assaultive offenses and firearm evidence)
- State v. Cline, 405 A.2d 1192 (R.I. 1979) (joinder where evidence of one event overlaps another; mutual admissibility consideration)
- State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311 (R.I. 1991) (contrast: joinder inappropriate where Rule 8(a) factors lacking)
- State v. Winston, 252 A.2d 354 (R.I. 1969) (photographs admissible to aid jury on corpus delicti and extent of injury)