State v. St. Michel
2012 R.I. LEXIS 21
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Defendant Kimberly St. Michel, a long-time bookkeeper for Mount Pleasant Hardware, was charged with embezzling over $100.
- Management discovered about $66,000 loss and irregularities in deposits and documentation, with defendant as the primary person responsible.
- The state’s investigation linked missing cash and misfiled deposits to patterns in defendant’s daily handling of ledgers and bank records.
- A jury trial in 2009 resulted in a conviction after a prior deadlocked trial; defendant received a 15-year sentence with one year to serve and 14 years suspended.
- On appeal, defendant challenged (1) cross-examination limits on an out-of-court innocence statement and (2) denial of a new-trial motion.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, remanding the papers for Superior Court. Justice Indeglia did not participate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-examination limitation for innocence statement | Statement is hearsay of a non-testifying defendant and not offered for truth. | Statement is impeachment, not hearsay, and should be admitted to challenge credibility. | No abuse of discretion; statement barred as hearsay under Hamois framework. |
| Motion for a new trial | Evidence supported guilt; independent juror review aligns with verdict. | Trial court overlooked inconsistencies and errors in the state's analysis and evidence. | No error; trial court properly denied new trial after independent review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 13 A.3d 1064 (R.I.2011) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. McManus, 990 A.2d 1229 (R.I.2010) (precedes standard for reviewing rulings)
- State v. Reyes, 984 A.2d 606 (R.I.2009) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and prejudice)
- Ferrell v. Wall, 889 A.2d 177 (R.I.2005) (implications for cross-examination limits)
- State v. Cerda, 957 A.2d 382 (R.I.2008) (independent review for motion for new trial)
- State v. Bergevine, 942 A.2d 974 (R.I.2008) (thirteenth juror concept in new-trial analysis)
- State v. Schloesser, 940 A.2d 637 (R.I.2007) (evaluation of weight of evidence on appeal)
- State v. Harnois, 638 A.2d 532 (R.I.1994) (limits on testifying and admissibility of statements)
- United States v. Sadler, 234 F.3d 368 (8th Cir.2000) (prohibition on testifying through others when Fifth Amendment invoked)