State v. Pedro Marte
2014 R.I. LEXIS 74
| R.I. | 2014Background
- On Sept. 13, 2010, Providence detectives observed a brief hand-to-hand transaction between Pedro Marte and Seth McGough; McGough later spit out two bags containing 3.1 grams of cocaine.
- Marte was arrested; police inventory later listed a wallet and $185 in cash found on him, but the cash was not seized because department policy was to not seize amounts under $300.
- The state disclosed the inventory information to defense counsel about 15 minutes before trial; defense moved in limine to exclude as a Rule 16 discovery violation and unfair surprise.
- The trial justice found no Rule 16 violation (state’s late disclosure was inadvertent and not shown to be intentionally withheld) but allowed a short recess for the parties to confer.
- The parties agreed the state would not elicit the specific amount; testimony was limited to the presence of cash and that it was less than $300. Marte was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and sentenced; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Marte) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a remedy for the State’s late disclosure of cash found on defendant (alleged Rule 16 violation) | Late disclosure was inadvertent; the cash evidence was discoverable but its late revelation did not prejudice defendant after the court-managed remedy and agreement limiting testimony | Late disclosure was an unfair surprise and prejudicial because cash was not listed in the seizure report and could have altered trial strategy; motion in limine should have been granted | Court affirmed: no clear Rule 16 violation; trial court acted within discretion, granted a continuance and limited testimony, and denial of exclusion was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Fravala v. City of Cranston, 996 A.2d 696 (R.I. 2010) (motion in limine reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Farley, 962 A.2d 748 (R.I. 2009) (Rule 16 violation review requires showing of clear error)
- State v. Stravato, 935 A.2d 948 (R.I. 2007) (discovery ruling will not be overturned absent clear abuse of discretion)
- State v. Grant, 946 A.2d 818 (R.I. 2008) (four-factor test for evaluating discovery violations)
- State v. Evans, 668 A.2d 1256 (R.I. 1995) (trial justice best positioned to evaluate prejudice from discovery noncompliance)
- Huffman v. State, 68 A.3d 558 (R.I. 2013) (scope of Rule 16 discovery obligations)
- DeCiantis v. State, 24 A.3d 557 (R.I. 2011) (elements of evidence subject to Rule 16)