State v. Markus Matthews
2014 R.I. LEXIS 38
| R.I. | 2014Background
- Lopez was assaulted and robbed at 54 Lynch Street, Providence, on May 6, 2009; about $20 was taken and Lopez was injured, including a severely injured eye.
- Michael Long later implicated Matthews in the robbery after a chance encounter and pled nolo contendere to robbery and conspiracy.
- At Matthews’s trial, Long testified with unusually faded memory while Labossiere testified about events linking Matthews to the crime.
- The jury was instructed on two theories of first-degree robbery within one count: by use of a dangerous weapon and causing injury, and convicted Matthews of robbery resulting in injury but acquitted on the weapon theory.
- Matthews was sentenced to 20 years with nine years to serve and eleven years suspended with probation; on appeal, he argues double jeopardy, evidentiary rulings, and denial of a new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy arising from multiple theories in one count | Matthews argues two theories violated double jeopardy | State's charging method creates duplicity but single offense | No double jeopardy; single offense; potential duplicity addressed by instructions |
| Admissibility of Long’s police statement as prior inconsistent statement | Long’s memory failure makes statement unreliable but admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) | Statement should be excluded as hearsay/Confrontation issues | Admissible as prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) |
| Confrontation Clause impact of Long’s statement | Use of Long’s statement violates cross-examination rights | Long appeared and was cross-examined | Not violated; cross-examination available and statement tested under Crawford |
| Harmlessness of leading questions about Long’s statement | Leading questions prejudiced the defense | Leading questions necessary to refresh memory | Harmless error given admissibility of the statement and overall evidence |
| Admission of Labossiere’s testimony as adoptive admission | Labossiere’s testimony about Long’s statements should be admissible as adoptive admission | Defendant did not adopt statements | Admissible as adoptive admissions; defendant’s conduct supported inference of adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McManus, 990 A.2d 1229 (R.I. 2010) (admissibility of prior statements to refresh memory; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Jaiman, 850 A.2d 984 (R.I. 2004) (prior statements admissible when witness memory is lacking; cross-examination available)
- State v. Day, 925 A.2d 962 (R.I. 2007) (double jeopardy waiver under Rule 12(b)(2) analysis)
- State v. Bolarinho, 850 A.2d 907 (R.I. 2004) (duplicitous charging; remedy and approach for multiple theories within one count)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; reliability tested by cross-examination; testimonial statements)