State v. Viveiros, 45 A.3d 1232

Viveiros was convicted of four counts of simple assault against three inmates at the ACI while a lieutenant on the 7 a.m.–3 p.m. shift.
The assaults occurred during disciplinary-board style interrogations of inmates Houghton, Romano, and Gonzalez between December 2005 and February 2006.
Botas (Captain) was the other officer charged; Spaziano was present at some incidents; Walsh and Gumkowski were involved in related 404(b) evidence issues.
The State moved to consolidate nine complaints; Spaziano’s case was severed due to likely prejudice; Botas and Viveiros were jointly tried.
Viveiros moved to sever his trial from Botas; the State sought to preclude defense testimony from inmate Atryzek; the jury was eventually instructed on Rule 404(b) issues; Viveiros pursued a new-trial motion alleging insufficient evidence.
The Rhode Island Superior Court convicted Viveiros; on appeal he challenges severance, in limine ruling, jury instructions, and the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether severance was properly denied.	Viveiros argues prejudice from joinder due to Botas’s stronger allegations.	Joint trial would prejudice Viveiros; 404(b) evidence on Walsh should not taint Viveiros.	No reversible prejudice; court properly denied severance.
Whether the in limine exclusion of Atryzek testimony was correct.	N/A (State viewed as moving party)	Atryzek testimony was extrinsic on a collateral matter and inadmissible.	Exclusion proper under Rule 608(b).
Whether jury instructions adequately directed separate consideration of each defendant.	Defendant argues instructions were confusing and failed to separate charges.	Instructions insufficient to separate defendants; improper common-scheme guidance.	Waived for failure to object timely; instructions were proper.
Whether the denial of a new trial was proper based on weight of the evidence.	Genuinely credible inmate witnesses supported guilt; new trial inappropriate.	Inconsistencies and credibility issues warranted a new trial.	Trial court’s denial affirmed; reasonable minds could differ.

State v. Gibbons, 418 A.2d 830 (R.I. 1980) (discretion in severance and joinder reviewed for prejudice)
State v. Hernandez, 822 A.2d 915 (R.I. 2003) (non-right to severance; prejudice balancing)
State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 308 A.2d 300 (R.I. 1973) (joinder and prejudice frameworks)
State v. Goodreau, 560 A.2d 318 (R.I. 1989) (prejudice from cumulative evidence concerns)
State v. Bernier, 491 A.2d 1000 (R.I. 1985) (prejudice standards for severance)
State v. Bustamante, 756 A.2d 758 (R.I. 2000) (needs for severance and prejudice descriptions)
State v. Tutt, 622 A.2d 459 (R.I. 1993) (extrinsic evidence limits on impeachment; Rule 608(b))
State v. Scanlon, 982 A.2d 1268 (R.I. 2009) (standards for ruling on motions in limine)
State v. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2007) (adequacy of jury instructions; constitutional sufficiency)
State v. Crow, 871 A.2d 930 (R.I. 2005) (objection timing and cure by trial judge)
State v. Nunes, 788 A.2d 460 (R.I. 2002) (standard for reviewing weight-of-evidence claims)
State v. Morales, 895 A.2d 114 (R.I. 2006) (thirteenth juror concept in weight-of-evidence review)
State v. Otero, 788 A.2d 469 (R.I. 2002) (teaches deference to trial judge’s credibility determinations)