State v. Patrick Cahill, 196 A.3d 744

In August 2012 defendant Patrick Cahill (then a Woonsocket police officer) forcibly restrained his nine‑year‑old half‑sister Abigail after a yard/house dispute; siblings Beth and Abigail, their mother Danielle, and girlfriend Amanda Paquette testified about the incident.
Witnesses described defendant grabbing Abigail by her ponytail, pulling her into the house, placing a knee on her stomach/thigh, squeezing her cheeks and placing a hand on her neck long enough to impair breathing; photographs and medical records were admitted.
The state charged Cahill with second‑degree child abuse under G.L. 1956 § 11‑9‑5.3(b)(2) (infliction of “other physical injury” by a person having care of a child).
Defendant waived a jury; after a bench trial the trial justice found the child witnesses and medical evidence credible and convicted Cahill of second‑degree child abuse.
Defendant moved for a new trial raising (1) improper expert testimony by a non‑noticed witness (Dr. Kaplan), (2) failure to consider simple assault as a lesser‑included offense, and (3) factual insufficiency; the trial justice denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cahill)	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Kaplan’s testimony	Testimony interpreting medical records and defining "strangulation" was permissible and not prejudicial; any error was harmless in a bench trial	Dr. Kaplan testified as an expert without Rule 16 notice; her opinions were cumulative and bolstered medical records	Trial court evidentiary rulings within discretion; defendant waived Rule 16 challenge and any cumulative/bolstering testimony was harmless in a jury‑waived trial; conviction affirmed
Lesser‑included offense (simple assault)	State argued no need to reach lesser‑included question because elements of 2nd‑degree child abuse were proven	Claimed simple assault is a lesser‑included offense where injury is de minimis or absent and trial court should have considered it	Trial justice found physical‑injury and excessiveness met; because elements were satisfied, court did not need to decide lesser‑included issue; conviction affirmed
Motion for new trial under Rule 33	N/A — State defended trial justice’s factual findings and denial of motion	Trial justice overlooked/misconceived evidence, admitted improper testimony, and failed to consider lesser offense	Rule 33 limited in jury‑waived cases; trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence and credibility findings will not be disturbed; motion properly denied

State v. Dunn, 726 A.2d 1142 (R.I. 1999) (limits of Rule 33 in jury‑waived trials)
State v. Stierhoff, 879 A.2d 425 (R.I. 2005) (preservation requirement for Rule 16 objections)
State v. Ceppi, 91 A.3d 320 (R.I. 2014) (discussion of cumulative evidence and bolstering)
State v. Medeiros, 996 A.2d 115 (R.I. 2010) (reduced prejudice from cumulative evidence in jury‑waived trials)
State v. DiPetrillo, 922 A.2d 124 (R.I. 2007) (deference to trial justice factual findings in bench trials)