STATE v. Ramon VIROLA, 115 A.3d 980

Christopher Nelson was murdered on August 16, 2004 during an attempted robbery in Providence; four men—David Mercado, Lazaro Martinez, Martin White, and Wayman Turner—were taken into custody, and Mercado cooperated with the state, pleading to conspiracy to commit robbery.
Defendant Ramon Virola was indicted on December 10, 2004, along with Martinez, White, and Turner, on charges including felony murder, assault with intent to rob, conspiracy to commit robbery, and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.
Mercado, White, and Turner entered into cooperation agreements; Mercado pled nolo contendere to conspiracy to commit robbery and later testified at Virola’s trial, while White pled guilty to related charges and also testified.
Virola was arrested in Glendale, Arizona, on November 16, 2011, using the alias Benny Delgado, and in December 2011 was notified that the state would seek to adjudge him a habitual criminal.
In February–March 2013, a Providence County Superior Court jury trial was held; the State proved that a felony murder occurred during the attempted robbery and that a conspiracy among the defendants existed to commit that robbery.
The jury convicted Virola on four counts; he moved for a new trial arguing the key witnesses were biased or not credible, and the trial judge denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of the motion for a new trial was proper given witness credibility	Virola contends Mercado, White, and Gallardo were compromised witnesses whose testimony should not have supported conviction.	Virola asserts the trial court failed to properly weigh credibility and erred in crediting these witnesses.	Affirmed; trial judge correctly applied the three-step new-trial standard and credited credibility; verdict not clearly unsupported.
Whether Gallardo's testimony about Virola's controlling behavior was admissible	Gallardo's testimony relevance and probative value outweighed potential prejudice, under Rule 401/403.	The testimony was either not relevant or unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded.	Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence relevant to flight/consciousness of guilt and probative despite potential prejudice.

State v. Hie, 93 A.3d 963 (R.I. 2014) (deference to trial judge on new-trial credibility determinations)
State v. Lake, 90 A.3d 186 (R.I. 2014) (deferential review of new-trial decisions; thirteenth juror concept)
State v. DiCarlo, 987 A.2d 867 (R.I. 2010) (three-step test for new-trial motions)
State v. Payette, 38 A.3d 1120 (R.I. 2012) (standard for evaluating new-trial motions)
State v. Harrison, 66 A.3d 432 (R.I. 2013) (credibility and weight of evidence on appeal)
State v. Reyes, 705 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1998) (flight as evidence bearing on guilt)
State v. Mastracchio, 112 R.I. 487 (1973) (impeachment and door-opening doctrine for subsequent testimony)