State v. Ricardo Romero, 193 A.3d 1167

Defendant Ricardo Romero was indicted for three counts of child molestation relating to alleged sexual assaults on Joann’s daughter, Mary, when Mary was about six years old; trial occurred in Providence County Superior Court.
Mary testified to three separate incidents in which Romero entered her bedroom and digitally penetrated or touched her buttocks; Joann reported Mary’s disclosures and took her for a medical/forensic interview.
At trial, defense counsel cross-examined Joann about relationship matters, asking whether Romero had a vasectomy and whether Joann wanted children; Joann replied she knew he had five children and that he “can’t see them.”
On redirect the prosecutor elicited that Romero “has restraining orders” preventing him from seeing his children; defense counsel made a nonspecific objection and moved to strike only after the statement.
The jury convicted Romero of three counts of second-degree child molestation (lesser included for two counts). The trial justice denied Romero’s motion for a new trial and sentenced him to concurrent twenty-year terms (seven years to serve).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of testimony that defendant “has restraining orders”	Testimony was permissible; any issue was waived and defense opened the door during cross-examination	Admission was prejudicial and invited impermissible speculation about prior misconduct; trial court erred by not striking the testimony	Affirmed: defendant waived the claim by failing to make a specific contemporaneous objection; ayrıca defense opened the door, so admission was not an abuse of discretion
Denial of motion for a new trial (credibility and sufficiency re: sexual gratification/penetration)	Trial justice properly acted as thirteenth juror, considered credibility, and reasonably concluded evidence supported convictions for second-degree molestation	Testimony was vague/incredible and insufficient for conviction; trial justice’s reasoning was conclusory and inadequate	Affirmed: trial justice gave adequate, reasoned findings, credited the victim’s testimony, and reasonably concluded the verdicts were supported

State v. Marizan, 185 A.3d 510 (R.I. 2018) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454 (R.I. 2013) (preservation: must object specifically at trial to raise issue on appeal)
State v. Virola, 115 A.3d 980 (R.I. 2015) (trial-justice reasoning on new-trial motions must be given deference when adequately articulated)
State v. Rainey, 175 A.3d 1169 (R.I. 2018) (trial justice acts as thirteenth juror in new-trial review)
State v. Kizekai, 19 A.3d 583 (R.I. 2011) (great weight given to trial-justice rulings when adequate reasoning is provided)