State v. Michael Narcovich, 244 A.3d 549

Defendant Michael Narcovich was subject to a no-contact order with his ex-girlfriend Lisa Spano and sent Facebook messages in violation of that order on January 13, 2015.
On January 23, 2015, Narcovich, Spano, Spano’s daughter Karina, and others went to the American Legion bar; a physical altercation occurred inside and then in the parking lot.
Narcovich drove Spano’s vehicle through the parking lot during the melee, struck two women (Katrina Esposito and Shanna Medeiros), who suffered serious injuries, and then left the scene; he was later found hiding under a truck in Barrington and arrested.
He was tried on eight counts (assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, leaving the scene, reckless driving causing injury, and three no-contact-order violations) and convicted on all counts; the trial justice later dismissed one count as duplicative and sentenced him to concurrent terms.
On appeal Narcovich argued (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury it could consider his intoxication despite no evidence, (2) two January 23 no-contact-order counts should have merged (double jeopardy), and (3) the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.
The Supreme Court vacated the convictions, holding the intoxication instruction was reversible error and that the two same-night no-contact violations should have merged; it did not reach the weight-of-the-evidence claim.

Issue	State's Argument	Narcovich's Argument	Held
Jury instruction permitting the jury to consider defendant’s intoxication	The instruction is a standard part of recklessness analysis and, though not emphasized, any error was harmless	There was no evidence of intoxication; allowing the jury to consider it injected an unsupported, prejudicial issue	Reversed: instruction was erroneous and prejudicial because intoxication was not a material issue and there was no evidence of it
Merger / double jeopardy for two Jan. 23 no-contact-order violations (East Providence and Barrington)	The incidents occurred in separate municipalities minutes apart and were therefore distinct events	The contacts were part of one continuous episode that traveled with the vehicle; counts should merge	Reversed trial court on the merits: the two violations were a single continuous act and should have merged
Motion for a new trial (weight of evidence)	Motion was untimely; verdict should stand	Verdicts were against the weight of the evidence	Not reached—Court vacated convictions on other grounds and remanded for new trial

Handy v. Geary, 252 A.2d 435 (R.I. 1969) (preliminary evidentiary hearing required before presenting intoxication evidence to a jury)
State v. Amaral, 285 A.2d 783 (R.I. 1972) (extended Handy procedure to criminal prosecutions involving intoxication evidence)
State v. Rice, 755 A.2d 137 (R.I. 2000) (cautions courts about undue prejudice when introducing intoxication to juries)
State v. Cardona, 969 A.2d 667 (R.I. 2009) (jury instructions must be read as a whole and adequately cover the law)
State v. Ortiz, 824 A.2d 473 (R.I. 2003) (defendant entitled to instructions that explain law on material factual issues supported by evidence)
State v. Scanlon, 982 A.2d 1268 (R.I. 2009) (separate acts in time/place may avoid merger; used to analyze distinctness of offenses)
State v. Haney, 842 A.2d 1083 (R.I. 2004) (double-jeopardy analysis for crimes arising from same act or transaction)
State v. Krushnowski, 773 A.2d 243 (R.I. 2001) (instructs that jury-charge review considers how ordinary jurors would understand instructions)