State v. Troy Footman, 196 A.3d 758

Background

Defendant Troy Footman was charged by information with two counts of sex trafficking of a minor, two counts of pandering/permitting prostitution, and one count of driving with a suspended license following undercover police activity at Cheaters, an exotic-dancing club.
The victim (pseudonym "Natalie") was a 14–15 year-old runaway who lived with Footman, had a sexual relationship with him, was provided with fake IDs and worked as an exotic dancer and in a private room, turning earnings over to Footman.
Footman posted sexualized ads for Natalie on Backpage, arranged paid sex encounters, provided condoms, and collected the proceeds.
At trial Footman was convicted on all five counts; the trial justice imposed lengthy concurrent and consecutive sentences.
On appeal Footman raised three issues: denial of an amended bill of particulars (insufficient notice), alleged double jeopardy from multiple convictions arising from the same conduct, and denial of a mistrial after a witness referenced "trafficking" and a comment about jail.
The Supreme Court vacated Footman’s two convictions under the then-applicable sex-trafficking statute (§ 11-67-6) because State v. Maxie held that statute failed to state a crime, and affirmed the remaining convictions and rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Footman)	Held
Bill of particulars — adequacy of notice	The original information, the bill of particulars response, and abundant discovery supplied sufficient notice of the alleged acts and dates.	Denial of an amended bill of particulars on the eve of trial deprived him of constitutionally adequate notice and prejudiced preparation.	Denial affirmed — response plus discovery gave adequate notice; no demonstrated prejudice.
Double jeopardy — multiple punishments for related counts	Not raised pretrial; convictions for multiple statutes were proper.	Multiple convictions (two sex-trafficking counts and two pandering counts) punish same conduct and violate double jeopardy.	Moot as to sex-trafficking counts (vacated under Maxie); remaining double-jeopardy claim waived for failure to raise pretrial.
Mistrial — witness testimony referencing "trafficking" and jail	Cautionary instruction and striking the remark cured any prejudice; the State could clarify after defense opened the door.	The mention of "trafficking" and jail was profoundly prejudicial and required a mistrial; the instruction was insufficient.	Denial affirmed — remark struck, comprehensive cautionary instruction given, prejudice cured; defendant opened the door via cross-examination.
Statutory validity — § 11-67-6 (sex trafficking statute)	State prosecuted under the statute as charged.	The statute fails to criminally proscribe conduct and therefore convictions under it cannot stand.	Convictions vacated — court follows State v. Maxie: § 11-67-6 does not charge a crime.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maxie, 187 A.3d 330 (R.I. 2018) (statute § 11-67-6 failed to charge a criminal offense)
State v. LaChapelle, 638 A.2d 525 (R.I. 1994) (purpose of bill of particulars is to avoid surprise by supplying evidentiary details)
State v. Hunt, 137 A.3d 689 (R.I. 2016) (bill of particulars supplies necessary particulars; not akin to interrogatories)
State v. Saluter, 715 A.2d 1250 (R.I. 1998) (bill of particulars purpose quoted)
State v. Gregson, 113 A.3d 393 (R.I. 2015) (granting a bill of particulars is within trial justice’s discretion)
State v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190 (R.I. 2005) (mistrial only when a cautionary instruction cannot cure prejudice)
State v. Mastracchio, 312 A.2d 190 (R.I. 1973) (if defendant opens door on cross-examination, prosecution may clarify on redirect)
State v. Day, 925 A.2d 962 (R.I. 2007) (double-jeopardy defense must be raised pretrial under Rule 12(b)(2))
State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435 (R.I. 2010) (double-jeopardy review is de novo; factual findings accorded deference)
United States v. Bass, 310 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2002) (double-jeopardy argument is moot if one conviction is vacated on other grounds)
United States v. Otis, 127 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (same)
State v. Fenner, 503 A.2d 518 (R.I. 1986) (jurors presumed to follow trial justice’s instructions)
State v. LaRoche, 683 A.2d 989 (R.I. 1996) (same presumption regarding jury compliance with instructions)