State v. Ricardo Franco, 225 A.3d 623

Ricardo Franco was indicted on three counts of first‑degree child molestation for alleged sexual assaults on a girl aged about 12–13 occurring in 2014; the victim testified to ~30 incidents and specifically recounted three.
The victim lived with defendant for a time, alleged the assaults occurred while others were home, and said defendant threatened deportation of her parents to keep her silent.
On direct examination the victim unexpectedly testified she had told “one of [her] classmates” about the assaults and that the classmate “didn’t believe [her].” Defense moved for a mistrial and to strike that testimony.
The trial justice denied a mistrial, struck and instructed the jury to disregard the portion reporting the classmate’s disbelief but allowed that the victim had told a classmate she had been assaulted.
State expert Dr. Barron (child‑abuse pediatrics) testified a normal genital exam does not rule out sexual abuse and concluded abuse occurred; defense expert Dr. Fine (OB/GYN) said an intact hymen was inconsistent with repeated penetration but cited no supporting studies.
The jury convicted on all counts; the trial justice denied defendant’s new‑trial motion after crediting the victim and the state expert; the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of mistrial / failure to strike victim’s unexpected testimony about telling a classmate was erroneous	No prior notice existed; the court cured any prejudice by striking the hearsay portion and instructing the jury; no preserved Rule 16 claim	Surprise deprived defense of opportunity to investigate the classmate; mistrial or full strike required	Denial affirmed; defendant waived Rule 16 challenge by not pressing it below; trial justice’s partial strike and instruction were within discretion
Whether the jury instruction to disregard the classmate’s reaction compounded error	Instruction cured prejudice and was appropriate	Allowing that the victim told a classmate (even if reaction struck) remained prejudicial	Waived on appeal—defense did not object to the instruction at trial; no reviewable error preserved
Whether denial of motion for a new trial (weight of evidence / credibility of experts and victim) was erroneous	Trial justice properly acted as thirteenth juror, credited state expert and victim, and articulated reasons	Victim’s inconsistencies and intact hymen undermine verdict; expert conflict warranted a new trial	Denial affirmed; trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence and permissibly credited Dr. Barron over Dr. Fine

State v. Fry, 130 A.3d 812 (R.I. 2016) (deference to trial justice on mistrial decisions)
State v. Tucker, 111 A.3d 376 (R.I. 2015) (same standard of review)
State v. Padilla, 171 A.3d 976 (R.I. 2017) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
State v. Hallenbeck, 878 A.2d 992 (R.I. 2005) (failure to object to jury instruction precludes appellate review)
State v. Silva, 197 A.3d 1287 (R.I. 2019) (trial justice as thirteenth juror; deference if sufficient reasoning articulated)
State v. DiCarlo, 987 A.2d 867 (R.I. 2010) (trial justice need not cite all evidence but must provide sufficient rationale)
State v. Rathbun, 184 A.3d 211 (R.I. 2018) (admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)