State v. Michael Giard
155 A.3d 1193
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Michael Giard pled nolo contendere in 2009 to one count of felony assault and received a five‑year deferred sentence conditioned on keeping the peace and good behavior.
- In April 2010, Giard’s then‑8‑year‑old niece, "Jessica," disclosed that Giard had touched her in the groin area over her clothing while she sat on his lap in a computer room; she said this occurred multiple times and the last incident was April 2010.
- Jessica, her mother (Charlene), and Giard’s wife/aunt (Lucy) testified at a combined jury trial on a child‑molestation charge and a deferred‑sentence violation hearing in June 2014.
- The jury acquitted Giard of second‑degree child molestation, but the hearing justice (at the separate deferred‑sentence violation hearing) found Jessica credible and concluded Giard had violated the deferred‑sentence condition by sexual contact in reasonable proximity to April 2010.
- The hearing justice sentenced Giard to a twenty‑year term with five years to serve; Giard appealed claiming the hearing justice acted arbitrarily and capriciously in credibility and timing findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Giard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding inappropriate touching | The hearing justice reasonably credited Jessica’s testimony and had a sufficient factual basis to find sexual contact occurred | The hearing justice erred in crediting Jessica; testimony conflicted and lacked support | Court held the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously and accepted the credibility finding |
| Whether the touching occurred in reasonable proximity to April 2010 (so as to violate the 2009 deferred sentence) | Testimony supported a final incident in April 2010; reasonable inference supports timing finding | Chronology among witnesses was inconsistent; if disclosure was earlier (2009) no violation could have occurred | Court upheld the hearing justice’s inference that the last incident occurred in April 2010 and found the timing determination plausible |
| Whether the jury acquittal barred the deferred‑sentence violation finding (collateral estoppel) | An acquittal in the criminal trial does not collaterally estop a judge from finding a probation/deferred‑sentence violation on lower burden | Giard argued inconsistency between acquittal and violation finding undermines the latter | Court agreed the hearing justice was not collaterally estopped and could reach a separate conclusion under the lower burden for violations |
| Appropriate standard/burden of proof for deferred‑sentence violation | State must show reasonably satisfactory evidence (lower than criminal standard) that defendant breached conditions | Giard argued the evidence failed even under the lower standard | Court reiterated the lower standard applies and that it was met here given the hearing justice’s credibility assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Plante, 109 R.I. 371, 285 A.2d 395 (1972) (explains equivalence of deferred‑sentence and probation standards)
- State v. Tetreault, 973 A.2d 489 (2009) (state need only show reasonably satisfactory evidence for probation/deferred‑sentence violation)
- State v. Jensen, 40 A.3d 771 (2012) (appellate deference to hearing justice credibility findings based on demeanor)
- State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305 (2008) (trial judge need only be reasonably satisfied defendant breached probation conditions)
- State v. Ferrara, 883 A.2d 1140 (2005) (court will uphold credibility‑based violation findings when judge plausibly accepts one version over another)