State v. Raymond A. Peltier, 116 A.3d 150

Background

Raymond Peltier was charged with simple domestic assault; he pleaded nolo contendere to a resisting-arrest charge before his Superior Court jury trial on the assault charge.
At trial the prosecution introduced testimony describing Peltier’s resistance to arrest; defense objected under Rule 404(b) and moved for mistrial; the trial justice overruled and gave a limiting instruction that the resisting-arrest evidence could be considered only as bearing on Peltier’s state of mind.
Officer testimony described Peltier as agitated, uncooperative, and physically resisting while officers attempted to handcuff and escort him down stairs; the victim testified about the alleged assault minutes earlier.
The jury convicted Peltier of simple domestic assault; the trial justice denied a motion for new trial and sentenced Peltier to probation and treatment programs.
On appeal Peltier argued the admission of evidence about the resisting-arrest charge (to which he had pled nolo contendere) violated Rule 404(b) and (in a passing reference) Rule 403.
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed, holding the resisting-arrest evidence was admissible as interwoven with the charged offense and probative of state of mind (including consciousness of guilt), and that the limiting instruction cured any prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) of testimony about defendant’s resisting arrest	State: evidence was interwoven with the charged assault, necessary to present the complete story and relevant to defendant’s state of mind	Peltier: resisting arrest occurred after the assault and thus is unrelated other-acts evidence prohibited by Rule 404(b)	Admitted: court held the acts were closely related in time/place, interwoven, and admissible to show state of mind (including consciousness of guilt)
Use of nolo contendere plea to exclude evidence	State: plea to resisting-arrest charge does not bar presentation of facts about the conduct when relevant to the assault case	Peltier: plea should shield against admission of those facts at trial on the assault	Rejected: plea did not sanitize the evidence because facts were interwoven and relevant to state of mind
Limiting instruction sufficiency to cure prejudice	State: timely, clear jury instruction limited use to state of mind; trial justice presumed jurors follow instructions	Peltier: admission was prejudicial despite instruction	Held: instruction cured any potential prejudice; no abuse of discretion in admission
Rule 403 balancing (unfair prejudice vs probative value)	State: probative value substantial because evidence completes the story and bears on mental state	Peltier: (raised below; on appeal only a passing reference) evidence was unduly prejudicial and inflammatory	Not reviewed in depth on appeal (Rule 403 argument insufficiently developed) — majority assumed limiting instruction cured prejudice

Key Cases Cited

State v. Clay, 79 A.3d 832 (R.I. 2013) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings and Rule 404(b) analysis)
State v. Rodriguez, 996 A.2d 145 (R.I. 2010) (Rule 404(b) list of permissible purposes treated as illustrative)
State v. St. Jean, 554 A.2d 206 (R.I. 1989) (temporally proximate acts admissible to show frame of mind)
State v. Morey, 722 A.2d 1185 (R.I. 1999) (uncharged acts admissible when closely related in time/place and interwoven)
State v. Gomes, 690 A.2d 310 (R.I. 1997) (other-acts admissible when interwoven to present a coherent story)
State v. Palmer, 962 A.2d 758 (R.I. 2009) (discussing flight/resistance as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
State v. Acquisto, 463 A.2d 122 (R.I. 1983) (activities inconsistent with innocence admissible to show consciousness of guilt)
United States v. Wright, 392 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004) (post-offense resistance admissible when inextricably intertwined with charged offense)
State v. Marmolejos, 990 A.2d 848 (R.I. 2010) (state entitled to present its case-in-chief; defendant not entitled to sanitized evidence)