State v. Michael Tully, a.k.a. Michael Vanover
110 A.3d 1181
| R.I. | 2015Background
- On May 30, 2012, Ralph Joseph was shot and later died; Michael Tully was implicated in a drug-related murder plot with Owens, Rue, and others.
- Indictment included six counts: felony murder, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, assault with intent to rob, robbery of Owens, conspiracy to rob, and carrying a firearm without a license.
- Owens testified about the planned marijuana deal and the events at 51 Salmon Street and 60 Fairfield Street, including a shooter later identified by Owens by voice and appearance.
- Surveillance video and cell-phone records linked defendant to the events and communications around the shooting; text and calls followed the incident.
- The jury acquitted on some counts and convicted defendant of first-degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery; a motion for a new trial was denied.
- Defendant challenges a mid-trial discovery issue (motion to pass) and the sufficiency/consistency of the verdicts, including vicarious liability theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying pass-the-case | Owens’s facial identification from eyes up was not disclosed under Rule 16. | This undisclosed facial identification prejudiced defense theory of cross-examining voice ID. | No abuse; Rule 16 not violated; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the verdicts are legally and practically sound given the conspiracy and felony murder theory | Jury could rely on Owens’s testimony and circumstantial evidence to support conspiracy and felony murder. | Inconsistencies and lack of proof of firearm use disfavor felony murder and co-conspirator liability. | Verdicts are legally consistent; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cipriano, 21 A.3d 408 (R.I. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for pass-the-case motions)
- State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 2005) (trial court credibility and weighing evidence in verdicts)
- State v. Whitaker, 79 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2013) (consistency vs. logical consistency in verdicts)
- State v. Arroyo, 844 A.2d 164 (R.I. 2004) (logically inconsistent verdicts defined)
- State v. Day, 925 A.2d 962 (R.I. 2007) (robbery elements and underlying felony framework)
- State v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190 (R.I. 2005) (conspiracy liability and continuing acts in furtherance of common design)
- State v. Ros, 973 A.2d 1148 (R.I. 2009) (proof of conspiracy as basis for liability)