State v. Terrel Barros
148 A.3d 168
| R.I. | 2016Background
- On Aug. 25, 2012, after a verbal dispute at the Monet Lounge, shots were fired in the parking lot; Jamal Cruz was fatally wounded and Rokiem Henley wounded.
- Officers on detail saw Stephen Bodden and Terrel Barros get into a car; both were detained and later charged (tried separately).
- At Barros’s trial, the defense intended to call Bodden as a witness; during a voir dire, Bodden initially answered some questions but then invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to continue testifying.
- The trial justice excused Bodden and excluded his testimony from the jury, concluding he had validly invoked the privilege and had not waived it by initial answers.
- Barros was convicted of first-degree murder and related firearm offenses; he appealed arguing the trial court erred in excluding Bodden’s testimony because any privilege was waived once Bodden began testifying.
- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed, holding (1) Barros lacked standing to contest Bodden’s Fifth Amendment rights and (2) Barros failed to preserve a proper objection at trial; alternatively, the trial justice acted within discretion in finding no waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Barros) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bodden validly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and whether the trial court erred in excluding his testimony | Bodden’s invocation was valid; trial justice did not abuse discretion in excluding his testimony | Bodden waived the privilege by initially answering questions and thus should have been compelled to continue testifying before the jury | Court affirmed: Barros lacks standing to contest Bodden’s Fifth Amendment rights; Barros also failed to preserve an objection at trial; alternatively, no waiver occurred and exclusion was within discretion |
| Whether Barros preserved the evidentiary objection for appeal | N/A | Trial counsel preserved the issue (argued disheartening, asked to call Bodden) | Court: defense did not make a timely, specific objection; raise-or-waive rule bars review |
| Whether an exception to the raise-or-waive rule should apply (e.g., Krynicki test) | N/A | Barros asks court to apply Krynicki exception due to high-stakes nature of case | Court declined to adopt Krynicki; reaffirmed narrow exceptions and refused to apply them here |
| Whether, on the merits, Bodden’s limited testimony waived the privilege (Mitchell/Klein analysis) | N/A | Bodden’s initial answers waived privilege as to that subject matter and required further questioning | Court: even on merits, no waiver—state had no opportunity to cross-examine; voir dire answers were too limited to create a distortion the jury would rely on, so invocation was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Department of Labor v. Triplett, 494 U.S. 715 (standing to raise third party Fifth Amendment rights)
- State v. Ducharme, 601 A.2d 937 (R.I.) (defendant lacks standing to assert co-defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (voluntary testimony can waive Fifth Amendment privilege for related subjects; waiver scope tied to cross-examination)
- Klein v. Harris, 667 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1981) (test for inferring waiver when witness begins testifying)
- United States v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d 289 (1st Cir.) (four‑prong test for reviewing unpreserved errors in criminal cases)
- State v. Baptista, 894 A.2d 911 (R.I.) (preservation of evidentiary objections under Rule 103)
- State v. Florez, 138 A.3d 789 (R.I.) (discussion of exceptions to raise-or-waive rule)