State v. Mustapha Bojang, 83 A.3d 526

Background

Defendant Mustapha Bojang, a Guinean national living with the Manneh family, was arrested on child-molestation charges after the victim (Jasmine), now a minor pseudonym, disclosed alleged abuse from 2007.
Police conducted two interviews at the station: an unrecorded first interview and a recorded second interview; defendant signed Miranda waivers in both. The recorded interview contained multiple incriminating admissions (kissing, digital penetration, and rubbing leading to ejaculation).
At the suppression hearing the trial justice made findings supporting voluntariness of the recorded confession but did not make clear credibility findings about disputed events in the unrecorded first interview (e.g., alleged striking/pounding of table and threats of deportation). The State conceded the trial justice failed to make necessary factual/credibility findings.
At trial the jury convicted on two counts (digital and penile penetration) and acquitted on others; defendant moved for a new trial, which the trial justice denied after independently assessing credibility. Sentence imposed concurrently.
The Supreme Court affirmed denial of the new-trial motion and evidentiary rulings on prior false-accusation impeachment, but remanded for the trial justice to make additional findings of fact and credibility determinations concerning voluntariness of the confessions; the trial justice may consider additional evidence or rely on the existing record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bojang)	Held
Whether confessions should be suppressed as involuntary	Confession (esp. recorded interview) was voluntary; State met clear-and-convincing burden	Statements were coerced (physical strike, table-pounding, threats including deportation); suppression required	Remanded: trial justice failed to make necessary factual/credibility findings about first (unrecorded) interview; must make additional findings and may permit further evidence or rely on record
Whether defendant could cross-examine complainant about prior false allegation of physical abuse against her mother	Exclusion appropriate; prior allegation not sufficiently similar or probative and risked juror confusion	Prior false report bore on credibility and impeachment; admissible under Rules 608(b)/404(b) and Confrontation Clause	Affirmed exclusion: trial justice did not abuse discretion; prior complaint of physical abuse unlike sexual-allegation impeachment and risked confusion
Whether denial of motion for new trial was erroneous	Trial justice properly acted as thirteenth juror, assessed credibility and weight, and would have reached same result	Verdict against weight of evidence given coerced/inconsistent confessions and complainant credibility	Affirmed denial: trial justice independently reviewed evidence, credited jury, and no preserved legal error shown
Scope of remand (whether additional evidence may be received)	State urged remand for additional findings or new hearing; majority defers to trial justice’s discretion to permit additional evidence	Defendant preferred remand limited to suppression-hearing record; dissent would bar reopening	Majority: remand allows trial justice discretion to permit or limit additional evidence; dissent would limit to existing suppression record

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008) (involuntary statements barred; constitutional standard)
State v. Monteiro, 924 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2007) (State must prove waiver and voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Jimenez, 33 A.3d 724 (R.I. 2011) (voluntariness assessed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Leuthavone, 640 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1994) (totality-of-circumstances framework)
Andrews v. Langlois, 252 A.2d 450 (R.I. 1969) (remand for limited hearing where trial court failed to make voluntariness finding)
State v. Brown, 468 A.2d 914 (R.I. 1983) (remand for evidentiary hearing and findings where record incomplete)
State v. Mastracchio, 672 A.2d 438 (R.I. 1996) (vacate and remand where trial justice failed to articulate factual findings on suppression ruling)
State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d 377 (R.I. 2001) (remand for suppression hearing when trial justice declined to address merits)
State v. Botelho, 753 A.2d 343 (R.I. 2000) (prior complaints of nonsexual abuse are not equivalent impeachment for sexual-assault credibility)