State v. Marcus Huffman, 68 A.3d 558

Victim (Cindy), age 19, heavily intoxicated after alcohol and marijuana on March 17–18, 2007; denied entry to a Providence nightclub and approached a police cruiser driven by defendant Officer Marcus Huffman.
Officer drove Cindy to a police substation restroom at ~12:40 a.m.; surveillance and key‑card logs placed both at the substation.
Cindy woke up on the substation floor with undergarments removed, reported vaginal pain and bright red bleeding, later went to hospital; BAC was 0.174 and urine positive for marijuana.
A sexual assault kit was performed; a resident doctor (Dr. Corl) found no observed trauma, a CNA reported swelling and bleeding, and a retained expert (Dr. Barron) opined later that findings were consistent with acute penetrating vaginal trauma.
DNA testing showed defendant’s seminal fluid on the inside of Cindy’s boxer shorts; defendant was indicted for first‑degree sexual assault (mentally incapacitated/physically helpless victim).
At trial defendant moved to dismiss the indictment (inaudible grand jury record), moved to pass the case (Rule 16 nondisclosures discovered mid‑trial), and moved to exclude Dr. Barron (alleged improper vouching); all motions were denied and defendant was convicted and sentenced; Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictment must be dismissed due to partially inaudible/incomplete grand jury recording	State: gaps were unintentional and the totality of the grand jury record (transcript + exhibits) was adequate	Huffman: gaps and inaudible portions prejudiced preparation and required dismissal	Court: No dismissal. Rule 6(e)(1) bars invalidating prosecution for unintentional recording failures; motion justice’s review found no prejudicial harm
Whether trial should have been passed/dismissed for Rule 16 discovery violations discovered mid‑trial	State: nondisclosures were inadvertent; remedy of continuance/recross was adequate	Huffman: late disclosure (e.g., victim’s return to substation, negative UV test) caused unfair surprise and required passing the case	Court: Denial affirmed. Trial justice found violations but remedial measures (continuance, broad recross) and lack of deliberate misconduct cured prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether Dr. Barron’s expert testimony improperly vouched/bolstered complainant and CNA	State: expert opinion admissible; any weaknesses go to weight, not admissibility	Huffman: Barron relied on layers of hearsay (grand jury, CNA) and effectively vouched for credibility, so testimony should be excluded	Court: Testimony admissible. Expert offered medical diagnosis based on medical evidence and permitted bases under Rule 703; did not directly address witness credibility

State v. Sivo, 809 A.2d 481 (R.I. 2002) (deference to trial justice on motion to dismiss indictment)
State v. Cassey, 543 A.2d 670 (R.I. 1988) (dismissal of indictment is an extreme remedy for grand jury irregularities)
State v. Gonzalez, 923 A.2d 1282 (R.I. 2007) (standard of review and sanctions for Rule 16 violations)
State v. Garcia, 643 A.2d 180 (R.I. 1994) (trial justice discretion on discovery noncompliance remedies)
State v. Gaspar, 982 A.2d 140 (R.I. 2009) (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings and expert testimony)
State v. Richardson, 47 A.3d 305 (R.I. 2012) (expert testimony and limits on bolstering/credibility evidence)
State v. Arroyo, 844 A.2d 163 (R.I. 2004) (impermissible vouching/bolstering principles)
State v. Lyons, 725 A.2d 271 (R.I. 1999) (witness opinion on another witness’s truthfulness generally inadmissible)
State v. Heredia, 493 A.2d 831 (R.I. 1985) (consider totality of effects before dismissing indictment for grand jury irregularity)
DeCiantis v. State, 24 A.3d 557 (R.I. 2011) (scope of discovery obligations and confrontation implications)
State v. Oster, 922 A.2d 151 (R.I. 2007) (purpose of Rule 16 to avoid surprise; trials seek truth)
State v. Simpson, 595 A.2d 803 (R.I. 1991) (timeliness of Rule 16 discovery to allow preparation)
State v. Castore, 435 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1981) (distinguishing inadmissible expert opinion based solely on complainant’s account)