State v. Samnang Tep
56 A.3d 942
R.I.2012Background
- Tep appeals after conviction on two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of using a firearm while committing a crime of violence.
- He challenges the admission of McArdle’s out-of-court statement as an excited utterance under Rule 803(2) and Saraceno’s lay-witness testimony about Tep’s mental state under Rule 701.
- Trial testimony placed the shooting in the context of a drug deal gone wrong at 33 Peach Avenue, Providence, including police and witness identifications.
- A shot was fired at the porch/door area; no one was hit, but a post was damaged and witnesses displayed nervousness; Tep fled with Chum, later arrested.
- Counts 3 and 4 were dismissed on the first day of trial; Tep was sentenced to concurrent ten-year terms for counts 1 and 2 and to a ten-year term for count 5, with five years to serve and five suspended, consecutive to the others.
- The Supreme Court summarily decided the appeal affirming the Superior Court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McArdle’s excited utterance was properly admitted. | Tep argues lack of proper foundation; officer’s testimony bolstered the State. | Admission was an abuse of discretion given lack of foundation and bolstering concern. | Not an abuse; foundation shown and statements admissible. |
| Whether Saraceno’s lay opinion about Tep’s mental state was proper. | Saraceno’s perception shows Tep’s intent. | Lay opinion based on perception; not an inference of Tep’s true mental state. | Proper lay opinion; did not invade jury function. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dominick, 968 A.2d 279 (R.I. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Accetta v. Provencal, 962 A.2d 56 (R.I. 2009) (evidentiary admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ims v. Town of Portsmouth, 32 A.3d 914 (R.I. 2011) (deferential standard for evidentiary decisions)
- State v. Mann, 889 A.2d 164 (R.I. 2005) (standard for admissibility of evidence)
- State v. Creighton, 462 A.2d 980 (R.I. 1983) (excited utterance assessment not strictly time-bound)
- State v. Momplaisir, 815 A.2d 65 (R.I. 2003) (excited utterance justification)
- State v. Barrett, 768 A.2d 929 (R.I. 2001) (lay opinion admissibility)
- State v. Hak, 963 A.2d 921 (R.I. 2009) (raise-or-waive considerations (cited in notes))