State v. Kizekai
2011 R.I. LEXIS 61
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Defendant Memeh Kizekai was convicted of uttering and publishing and, originally, conspiracy; conviction upheld after state rested at trial and defense presented testimony; Sampson, a key witness, testified against Kizekai while Kizekai testified in his own defense.
- The central dispute on appeal is the credibility ruling on Sampson vs. Kizekai, with the defense alleging Sampson’s testimony was incredible and the state contending she was credible.
- Sampson deposited a stolen $7,500 check payable to her at Pawtucket Credit Union, which was ultimately partly withdrawn; Kizekai allegedly aided the scheme and was charged.
- Sampson pled nolo contendere to a reduced misdemeanor in exchange for restitution and testimony; the state emphasized Sampson’s credibility and Kizekai’s evasiveness.
- The trial judge denied a motion for a new trial, holding credibility issues favored Sampson; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, applying deferential review to credibility determinations.
- Sentencing followed, with a two-year suspended sentence and threeyears of probation; the judgment of conviction was entered, and appeal ensued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility-based denial of new trial | State contends Sampson credible; Kizekai inconsistent | Kizekai argues credibility issues undermine verdict | Trial court's credibility ruling affirmed; no clear error found |
| Sufficiency of the evidence without handwriting expert | Handwriting not essential to uttering and publishing | Handwriting could affect guilt; expert needed | No handwriting expert required; verdict supported by other evidence |
| Handwriting issue on trial/record raise | Not raised as issue at trial; permissible on appeal per rule | Failure to raise precluded consideration | Issue not preserved; not considered on appeal |
| Standard of review for new-trial rulings | Trial court acted as superjuror; proper deferential review | Need for independent reweighing of evidence | Deferential standard applied; no clear error in superjuror assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759 (R.I. 2011) (deference to trial judge on new-trial rulings; articulation of reasoning)
- State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132 (R.I. 2008) (credibility determinations in new-trial context)
- State v. Banach, 648 A.2d 1363 (R.I. 1994) (standard for reviewing trial courts in new-trial motions)
- State v. Espinal, 943 A.2d 1052 (R.I. 2008) (thirteenth juror concept in evaluating verdicts)
- State v. Pineda, 13 A.3d 623 (R.I. 2011) (superjuror framework for credibility review)
- State v. Kittell, 847 A.2d 845 (R.I. 2004) (superjuror analysis in new-trial context)
- State v. Bergevine, 942 A.2d 974 (R.I. 2008) (balancing credibility and weight of evidence)
- State v. Cardona, 969 A.2d 667 (R.I. 2009) (standard for overturning a verdict on appeal)