State v. Robert Austin
114 A.3d 87
R.I.2015Background
- Complainant Laura was fondled over her clothes on a RIPTA Route 60 bus on November 29, 2010; she recorded the bus number (0545), time, and a description of the assailant and later reported the incident to police.
- Police circulated a BOLO; two men were stopped in the ensuing days: “McGill” (released) and Robert Austin, who was found wearing a gray sweatsuit, a purple-and-yellow Vikings jacket, and carrying a black duffel bag.
- Austin’s RIPTA card record showed swipes on November 29 at 12:59 p.m. (Route 30) and 1:06 p.m. (Route 60 bus 0545), matching Laura’s notes.
- A seven-photo array (all white men with short hair and no facial hair) was shown to Laura 48 hours after the assault; she initially reviewed the array sequentially, then asked to re-view photos 1 and 3 and side profiles, and identified Austin (photo 3); she later confirmed after being shown additional photos of Austin with the jacket and duffel bag.
- Austin moved to suppress the out-of-court identification, moved for judgment of acquittal, and later for a new trial; the trial justice denied suppression and the new-trial motion, submitted identification-related jury instructions differently than Austin requested, and a jury convicted Austin of second-degree sexual assault.
- On appeal Austin argued the photo array was unduly suggestive, the trial justice erred in denying a new trial, and the jury instructions failed to address accuracy versus certainty; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the photo array was unduly suggestive so as to require suppression | State: array and pre-view admonition were proper; photos shared complainant’s description and identification was timely and reliable | Austin: array subjects were dissimilar; showing additional photos of Austin (jacket/bag) after selection impermissibly suggested and confirmed ID | Not unduly suggestive; admonition and similar general characteristics cured risk of misidentification; ID admissible |
| If suggestive, whether identification was nonetheless reliable under totality of circumstances | State: multiple in-person observations, short 48-hour delay, and certainty support reliability | Austin: complainant’s initial uncertainty, age-range estimate, and later exposure to confirmatory images undermine reliability | Court found identification reliable even if suggested; trial justice properly relied on opportunity to observe, prompt ID, and corroborating bus-pass data |
| Whether trial justice erred in denying motion for new trial (weight of evidence) | State: credibility of complainant and bus-pass evidence support jury verdict | Austin: jury could reasonably reject ID; trial justice overlooked confirmatory procedure and uncertainties | Denial affirmed; trial justice acted as thirteenth juror, weighed credibility, and did not overlook material evidence |
| Whether jury instructions should have included specific accuracy-vs-certainty language (Henderson/Figuereo phrasing) | Austin: requested instruction (including Henderson-based language) was necessary to focus jury on accuracy vs. certainty | State: trial instructions already covered issues jurors should consider about opportunity, certainty, and reliability | Court (de novo) held instructions adequately covered law; no specific phrasing required as long as essence was conveyed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gallop, 89 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2014) (standard and two-step test for eyewitness-identification suppression)
- State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239 (R.I. 2012) (necessity of first determining whether identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive)
- State v. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2007) (photographic arrays need general similar characteristics, not exact look-alikes)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (five-factor reliability test for eyewitness identification)
- State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283 (R.I. 2011) (discussion of jury instruction content vs. required wording)