157 A.3d 1063
R.I.2017Background
- Defendant Ralph Thibedau (stepfather) was indicted on three child-molestation counts alleging (1) first-degree penile-vaginal penetration with a person 14 or under (Aug 2009), (2) second-degree sexual contact with a person 14 or under (July 2009), and (3) third-degree penetration with a person 14–15 (Dec 2011–Mar 2012). A jury convicted him on all counts and he was sentenced to 25 years on count 1 (plus registration), with additional suspended terms on counts 2 and 3. Defendant appealed.
- The complainant ("Stephanie") testified that sexual abuse occurred repeatedly—she estimated over 100 incidents across about three years—and described specific incidents corresponding to the charged counts. Her credibility was heavily contested at trial.
- Prior to trial the defense moved to exclude ‘‘other-acts’’ evidence under Rule 404(b); the trial justice denied the motion and allowed testimony that the abuse occurred repeatedly and that defendant bartered cigarettes/alcohol/marijuana for sex.
- The state called Stephanie’s aunt Donna Hogan (not listed in the State’s witness list) over a Rule 16 objection; Hogan testified about Stephanie’s changed demeanor and her disclosure. The trial justice allowed the testimony after finding no prejudicial nondisclosure.
- Defense objections included: admission of Rule 404(b) other-acts evidence, late disclosure of Hogan under Rule 16, limits on cross-examination about Stephanie’s truthfulness, lay-opinion testimony about demeanor, duplicity of count 1, and certain jury-instruction omissions.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial justice did not abuse discretion on evidentiary rulings, discovery, cross-examination limits, duplicity, or jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Thibedau's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts (Rule 404(b)) | Other-acts testimony (repeated abuse, barter system) probative to show lewd disposition, intent, plan; admissible and necessary to assess credibility | Admission was unnecessary, cumulative, too vague/remote, prejudicial; limiting instruction was "scattershot" | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence probative, not unduly prejudicial; limiting instruction adequate |
| Failure to disclose witness (Rule 16) | Omission was unintentional; discovery packet and summaries (DCYF report, police notes) put defense on notice; no prejudicial surprise | Hogan not listed; no verbatim statement; Rule 16 violated, warranting reversal | Court: Applied Coelho factors; no clear error or undue prejudice; testimony properly admitted |
| Limits on cross-exam re: complainant’s truthfulness (Rule 608) | Cross-exam allowed where testimony opened the door; Hogan did not testify to complainant’s character for truthfulness on direct | Defense sought to probe specific instances of untruthfulness based on Hogan’s statements | Court: No abuse of discretion; Hogan’s testimony did not open door under Rule 608(b) |
| Duplicitous indictment / judgment of acquittal on count 1 | Count 1 charged a single act (first penetration in Aug 2009) and bill of particulars identified the first time; testimony included specific first-instance details | Vagueness of testimony (100+ incidents) made count 1 duplicitous because jury unanimity could be lacking | Court: Count 1 not duplicitous; bill of particulars and specific testimony identified a single act; J.A. properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jalette v. State, 119 R.I. 614, 382 A.2d 526 (R.I. 1978) (other-acts against same victim may show lewd disposition but should be sparingly used)
- Gomes v. State, 690 A.2d 310 (R.I. 1997) (other-acts evidence must not be cumulative, must be relevant to a specific exception, and trial court should specify the exception and limit use)
- Rios v. State, 996 A.2d 635 (R.I. 2010) (admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Breen v. State, 767 A.2d 50 (R.I. 2001) (Rule 404(b) framework—other crimes not admissible to prove propensity but may be admissible for other purposes)
- Saluter v. State, 715 A.2d 1250 (R.I. 1998) (duplicitous counts risk lack of jury unanimity; bills of particulars can cure duplicity)
- Coelho v. State, 454 A.2d 241 (R.I. 1982) (factors to consider when a prosecutor fails to disclose a witness: reason for nondisclosure, prejudice, feasibility of cure, other factors)
- Ortiz v. State, 609 A.2d 921 (R.I. 1992) (two-part test for lay-opinion demeanor testimony: witness must have observed and supply concrete supporting details)
- Virola v. State, 115 A.3d 980 (R.I. 2015) (Rule 403 exclusion of relevant evidence should be exercised sparingly)
- Maria v. State, 132 A.3d 694 (R.I. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)