State v. Luis Padilla, 171 A.3d 976

On July 24, 2010, Justin McFadden was attacked at Crossroads in Providence; he was stabbed multiple times and had cash and other items taken from his pockets.
McFadden identified three men involved: Lugo and Rivera (who assaulted and threatened him) and Padilla (who approached with them, later broke off, then reportedly struck McFadden and searched his pockets after he was stabbed).
Frances Paban, an eyewitness, gave a taped statement implicating Padilla in seeking a share of the robbery; at trial she gave inconsistent testimony and said she could not read well but acknowledged her recorded statement when it was read or played to her.
Lugo and Rivera pled nolo contendere to charges arising from the incident; Padilla was tried in a bench (jury-waived) trial on a first-degree robbery charge based on aiding and abetting.
The trial justice denied Padilla’s Rule 29 motion, found the evidence sufficient to convict him as a principal (aider/abettor), and sentenced him to 15 years (4 to serve, 11 suspended).
Padilla appealed, arguing (1) the trial justice misstated McFadden’s testimony about who confronted him and (2) the court improperly relied on Paban’s prior statements given her limited reading ability; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Padilla)	Held
Whether the trial justice mischaracterized McFadden’s testimony about who approached/confronted him	The trial justice accurately summarized McFadden’s account that all three men approached and then Padilla broke off	Padilla argued McFadden testified only Lugo and Rivera approached and confronted him, not Padilla	Court held the trial justice’s summary was accurate and read in context; no clear error in credibility findings
Whether the trial justice erred in relying on Paban’s prior statements given her limited reading ability	The state argued Paban was able to recognize and acknowledge her recorded statements when they were read or played to her at trial	Padilla argued Paban’s limited literacy meant she could not validly acknowledge or recognize her prior statements relied on by the court	Court held Padilla waived the claim by not objecting at trial; alternatively, even on the merits Paban could and did recognize statements when read/played, so reliance was proper

State v. McKone, 673 A.2d 1068 (trial justice may deny Rule 29 and enter judgment when evidence suffices)
State v. Edwards, 147 A.3d 982 (deference to trial justice credibility findings in bench trials)
State v. Erminelli, 991 A.2d 1064 (appellate review standard for trial justice factual findings)
State v. Adewumi, 966 A.2d 1217 (same standard on credibility/findings)
State v. Van Dongen, 132 A.3d 1070 (appellate restraint where competent evidence supports findings)
State v. Brown, 709 A.2d 465 (do not isolate witness statements out of context when evaluating testimony)
State v. Long, 61 A.3d 439 (aider-and-abettor may be convicted as principal)
State v. Davis, 877 A.2d 642 (same principle regarding aider/abetter liability)
State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (raise-or-waive rule for appellate review of unpreserved issues)