State v. Nigel Nichols, 155 A.3d 1180

Background

On Dec. 6, 2009, two men (David Thomas and Domingo Ortiz) were killed and a third (Dwayne Thomas) was seriously wounded by gunfire while stopped in a car outside the Garrahy Judicial Complex in Providence; 22 .40-caliber casings were recovered.
Police linked a .40-caliber Glock and an extended 30-round magazine to defendant Nigel Nichols through witness testimony (notably Devon Boswell and Rachel Regis) and subsequent searches; Boswell testified he saw Nichols swap a 15-round for an extended magazine and later said Nichols commented that he left victims "slumped."
Forensic testing by a crime-lab criminalist was inconclusive as to whether the extended magazine seized two years later was the magazine used at the scene, but showed the magazine fit a Glock and could accept .40 and 9mm cartridges; markings on casings were noted.
Nichols was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of assault with a dangerous weapon, and three counts of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence; sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional terms.
On appeal Nichols challenged (1) admission of the extended magazine and related expert testimony, (2) alleged Rule 16 discovery violations as to several witnesses, (3) the prosecutor’s peremptory strike (Batson), and (4) the denial of his motion for a new trial on sufficiency/credibility grounds.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of extended high-capacity magazine and expert testimony	Magazine evidence and criminalist testimony were relevant; the magazine fit a Glock and its probative value outweighed prejudice	Testimony and magazine were not shown to be linked to the crime; expert could not say within scientific certainty that the magazine fired the scene casings	Evidence admissible; any link issues go to weight, not admissibility; trial justice did not abuse discretion
Alleged Rule 16 discovery violations (Boswell, Det. A'Vant, Clapperton)	Testimony was consistent with disclosed material or not prejudicial surprise; trial court properly exercised discretion	State failed to disclose prior recorded statements / expected testimony; testimony was a prejudicial surprise	No clear abuse of discretion; trial justice reasonably found no prejudicial violation and remedies were adequate
Batson challenge to peremptory strike of Juror No. 110	Proffered race-neutral reasons (juror’s legal contacts and inquisitiveness; perceived leadership) were credible and not pretextual	Strike was racially motivated / pretextual; juror was minority	Trial justice credited prosecutor’s reasons; ruling not clearly erroneous — Batson objection rejected
Motion for new trial / sufficiency and credibility of evidence	Key witnesses (Boswell, Regis) provided admissible, corroborative testimony; jury and trial justice could credit them despite inconsistencies	Prosecution relied on unworthy witnesses and inconsistent testimony; verdict against weight of evidence	Trial justice, acting as thirteenth juror, found testimony credible and evidence sufficient; denial of new trial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rios, 996 A.2d 635 (R.I. 2010) (relevance of evidence may permit admission despite inability to conclusively link item to crime)
State v. Reyes, 984 A.2d 606 (R.I. 2009) (forensic inability to say a weapon fired the fatal bullets does not bar admission where bullets are consistent with the weapon)
State v. Santiago, 81 A.3d 1136 (R.I. 2014) (Rule 16 discovery standards and continuing duty to disclose; trial-justice discretion on sanctions)
State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735 (R.I. 2005) (discussing Rule 16 and discovery obligations)
State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574 (R.I. 2005) (factors for assessing appropriate sanctions for discovery violations)
State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454 (R.I. 2013) (application of Batson framework and deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132 (R.I. 2008) (standard for trial justice acting as thirteenth juror on motions for new trial)