State v. Lopez
2012 R.I. LEXIS 91
R.I.2012Background
- Lopez was charged with first-degree murder for killing Hilario, with a sentence of life without parole sought under § 11-23-2(4).
- Pretrial motions included Rule 403/404(b) challenges to prior-acts evidence; trial court admitted two May 2007 incidents against Hilario.
- DNA evidence was presented via a Cellmark-aligned workflow and an allele table created by supervisor Quartaro; defendant objected to admissibility and confrontation.
- Hilario died from forty stab wounds; autopsy supported homicide and aggravated battery findings, leading to a life-without-parole sentence after sentencing hearing.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, with Justice Flaherty dissenting on the severity of the sentence.
- The record includes extensive testimony about pre- and post-murder telephone communications and the defendant’s behavior toward Hilario.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA evidence admissibility and confrontation | Lopez arguesQuartaro testifies without observing tests. | Lopez contends Bullcoming requires cross-examination of the certifying analyst. | Confrontation satisfied; Quartaro testified as the certifying witness. |
| Allele table as testimonial data | Allele table is essential DNA data. | Allele table is testimonial and thus subject to confrontation. | Allele table deemed testimonial; defendant had adequate opportunity to cross-examine Quartaro. |
| Admission of prior-acts evidence | Prior acts show motive/intent entwined with the crime. | Evidence is prejudicial and not sufficiently probative. | No abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice under Rule 404(b). |
| Jury instruction on prior inconsistent statements | No reversible error in given instruction. | Requested wording better conveyed impeachment effect. | Instructions adequate; no error or prejudice. |
| Life sentence without parole | Court should affirm life without parole given brutality. | Sentence should be reduced given mitigating factors and potential for rehabilitation. | Court affirmed life without parole; dissent would reduce sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires face-to-face confrontation for testimonial statements)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (Forensic-certification testimony is testimonial; surrogate cannot substitute for cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (Forensic certificates are testimonial evidence)
- Summers v. United States, 666 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2011) (Machine-generated raw data may be non-testimonial; interpretations may be testimonial)
- Derr v. State, 422 Md. 211, 29 A.3d 533 (Md. 2011) (Allele table analysis requires independent interpretation; varies by jurisdiction)
- Ramos-Gonzalez, 664 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (Cross-examination of final DNA analyst permissible to test intervening procedures)
- Moon, 512 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2008) (Raw data vs. interpretation in DNA testing)