State v. Thomas Mosley, 320 A.3d 942

Background

On August 13, 2014, Yusef A’Vant was fatally shot in Krazy Kuts barbershop, East Providence, RI, after Thomas Mosley was recruited by Derek Winslow to aid in an ongoing dispute.
Evan Watson, who initially declined to commit the murder, later assisted Mosley by driving him and supplying the weapon, then testified for the prosecution.
Key evidence included Watson’s detailed testimony, digital forensics tracing Mosley’s phone to the vicinity of the barbershop, recorded post-crime conversations, and efforts by Mosley to obstruct justice via influencing a witness, Rithy Suon, and others.
Mosley was indicted on multiple counts including murder, conspiracy, firearm offenses, and obstruction; after a first trial ended in partial convictions and deadlocks, he was retried and convicted of second-degree murder and additional charges.
On appeal, Mosley raised twenty-one legal issues, challenging jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, joinder of charges, and other procedural and substantive matters.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in any of the contested areas.

Issues

Issue	Mosley's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Double Jeopardy (count 4 retrial)	Retrial on discharged firearm charge after prior guilty verdict constitutes double jeopardy.	No double jeopardy; retrial after motion for new trial is allowed, especially where the counts require different proof.	No double jeopardy; retrial was proper.
Second-degree murder instruction at second trial	Second trial instruction was improper due to law-of-the-case doctrine.	Instructions from first trial are not binding; lesser-included instructions proper at second trial.	Law-of-the-case does not apply; instruction proper.
Failure to give accomplice instruction	Jury should receive specific caution about accomplice testimony.	General credibility instructions suffice and avoid judicial impeachment of witness.	No error; general credibility instruction was adequate.
Admissibility of Google Wi-Fi location data	Expert testimony was unreliable and data should be excluded.	Wi-Fi and digital forensics are sufficiently reliable and commonly admitted; expert fully qualified.	Evidence properly admitted; no abuse of discretion.
Motion to suppress statements/testimony (Suon, Drepaul, prison calls)	Testimony and recordings coerced or in violation of privacy/statute.	Voluntariness/consent present or challenged rights not Mosley's; evidence reliable.	Motions to suppress properly denied.
Grand jury/collateral estoppel (false statement, incomplete evidence, prior probation violation)	False grand jury testimony, missing exculpatory evidence, and prior probation proceedings taint indictment or bar prosecution.	Later guilty verdicts cure grand jury deficiencies; collateral estoppel from probation doesn’t apply.	Indictment stands; collateral estoppel does not bar prosecution.
Joinder/severance of obstruction charges	Joining obstruction with other charges is improper and prejudicial.	Properly joined as part of common plan; evidence linked.	Joinder proper; no prejudicial error.
Various evidentiary (hearsay, foundation, inconsistent statements) and procedural objections	Multiple rules violations in admission and handling of evidence/testimony/instructions.	No prejudicial error; raise-or-waive rule bars review of undeveloped or unpreserved objections.	No reversible errors; raise-or-waive rule enforced.

Key Cases Cited

Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (well-settled that a successful appeal does not bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for determining when two offenses are separate for double jeopardy analysis)
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (deficiencies at grand jury are cured by subsequent guilty verdict)
State v. Adams, 161 A.3d 1182 (cell phone location evidence is not novel and is properly admissible with qualifying expert testimony)
State v. DeMasi, 413 A.2d 99 (no error in refusing specific accomplice instruction when jury is properly instructed on credibility)
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (recorded conversations admissible with party consent, not requiring warrant under wiretap statute)
United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (retrial following successful appeal does not violate double jeopardy)