State v. Robert Raso, 2013 R.I. LEXIS 156

Background

In 1990 Robert Raso pled nolo contendere to multiple serious offenses and received concurrent sentences with lengthy suspended time and probation on one arson and eight robbery convictions.
On March 8, 2011 the State filed a Rule 32(f) probation-violation report alleging Raso failed to keep the peace and be of good behavior based on allegations by his 14‑year‑old stepdaughter (pseudonym Natalie) of repeated sexual abuse, including an alleged incident on March 6, 2011.
A combined probation-violation and bail hearing lasted five days; thirteen witnesses testified, including Natalie, two friends who said she previously disclosed abuse, a DCYF investigator, forensic DNA lab supervisor, family members, and Raso.
Physical evidence: seminal fluid and sperm were found on Natalie’s comforter and seminal fluid on her bedsheet; DNA testing matched Raso’s profile to the comforter stain and implicated Raso and Natalie on the sheet.
The hearing justice found Natalie and her corroborating friends credible, found the basement interrogation recantation coerced, discredited Raso’s testimony (noting his prior sex‑offense plea and his admission that he lied at that plea), and adjudicated a probation violation, imposing twenty‑five years of previously suspended time.
Raso appealed, arguing primarily that the hearing justice’s credibility findings were arbitrary and capricious given alleged inconsistencies in Natalie’s statements and the coercive interrogation by family members.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Raso's Argument	Held
Whether reasonably satisfactory evidence supported revocation of probation based on failure to keep the peace/be of good behavior	The State argued the totality of testimony (Natalie, friends, DCYF, DNA evidence, and other witnesses) provided reasonably satisfactory evidence of sexual abuse and probation breach	Raso argued Natalie’s testimony contained inconsistencies, her prior recantation was coerced by family (not by him), and evidence was insufficient to support credibility findings	Court affirmed: standard is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt; hearing justice’s credibility assessments were well supported and not arbitrary or capricious
Whether the hearing justice properly weighed inconsistencies in witnesses’ statements (friends’ reports, Natalie’s varying descriptions)	State urged the trial justice could credit core consistencies and explain minor discrepancies as natural given context and passage of time	Raso claimed inconsistencies (e.g., alleged texts, differing details) undermined reliability and required reversal	Court held minor inconsistencies did not undermine overall credibility; trial justice reasonably reconciled differences and relied on corroborative testimony and evidence
Reliance on the recorded basement interrogation and finding the recantation coerced	State contended the recording supported that Natalie’s recantation was coerced and that the original disclosure was reliable	Raso observed that the coercive interrogation was conducted by family and not defendant, arguing its existence should not bolster Natalie’s credibility	Court held the recording legitimately informed credibility: it demonstrated coercion of the recantation and did not preclude the trial justice from crediting the original disclosure
Whether appellate review should overturn credibility findings (standard of review)	State emphasized precedent affording great deference to trial justice who sees witnesses and weighs credibility	Raso asked the Court to overturn as arbitrary/capricious	Court applied deferential standard (probation‑violation standard) and declined to second‑guess hearing justice; affirmed revocation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ford, 56 A.3d 463 (R.I. 2012) (explaining lower burden of proof at probation‑violation hearings and deference to credibility findings)
State v. English, 21 A.3d 403 (R.I. 2011) (same; describing reasonably satisfactory evidence standard)
State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225 (R.I. 2009) (noting appellate court will not second‑guess supportable credibility assessments at probation hearings)
State v. Kennedy, 702 A.2d 28 (R.I. 1997) (probation‑revocation hearings need not provide full criminal‑trial protections)