189 A.3d 43
R.I.2018Background
- On Nov. 15, 2014, a Providence on-campus road‑rage shooting wounded Rudy Basquez; eyewitnesses described a tall Black male shooter in a blue/green SUV that fled the scene. Police recovered a license plate later identified as registered to Willie Washington. Washington was arrested nearby and tried.
- Two eyewitnesses (Ferretti and Sheetz) viewed Washington in separate show‑up identifications about an hour after the shooting; police did not follow all departmental show‑up protocols. Both witnesses identified Washington at the show‑ups; one later failed to identify him in court pretrial.
- An anonymous 911 recording (later revealed to be made by Stephen "Chase" Rasch) that included a partial license‑plate number was admitted at trial as an excited utterance; Rasch did not personally see the plate (it was relayed to him by a third party).
- At trial the jury convicted Washington of four offenses; he was sentenced to 60 years (20 years nonparolable) and appealed. While the appeal was pending, defense counsel learned Rasch’s identity and that Rasch had a pretrial phone call with a prosecutor; Washington sought a remand and a new trial under Brady.
- On remand the Superior Court (same trial justice) held evidentiary hearings, denied suppression of the show‑ups (finding identifications reliable), deemed the 911 call admissible pretrial but later concluded the call was in fact hearsay, found no Brady violation (crediting prosecutors’ testimony that the call produced no material information), and denied a recusal motion. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Washington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of show‑up IDs | Show‑ups were proper; identifications reliable under totality/Biggers factors | Show‑ups were impermissibly suggestive and should be excluded (or require exigency showing); challenge Biggers framework | Some suggestivity existed but Biggers factors show identifications reliable; admission affirmed |
| Admissibility of anonymous 911 recording | Initially admissible as excited utterance; even if inadmissible, its admission was harmless and cumulative | Recording lacked indicia the caller personally observed the plate; admission prejudicial | Court assumed recording was inadmissible hearsay but ruled its admission harmless because evidence was cumulative; no new trial |
| Brady claim (failure to disclose prosecutor’s pretrial call to 911 caller) | No Brady violation: prosecutors obtained no material or identifying information from the call; call was "factually barren" | State withheld favorable, material information (identity of caller, pretrial contact) that could have aided impeachment/defense and warranted a new trial | Trial justice credited prosecutors, discredited caller; nondisclosure not deliberate or material; no Brady violation |
| Recusal of trial justice | N/A (State opposed recusal) | Trial justice should recuse because one prosecutor had a professional connection to the judge’s daughter, creating appearance of bias in credibility disputes | No reasonable person would question impartiality on record; recusal denied and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of materially favorable evidence violates due process)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identifications)
- State v. Texter, 923 A.2d 568 (R.I. 2007) (two‑step show‑up analysis: suggestiveness then reliability)
- State v. Patel, 949 A.2d 401 (R.I. 2008) (Biggers totality approach applied; no per se exclusion for suggestive show‑ups)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (standard for materiality under Brady)
- State v. Morales, 895 A.2d 114 (R.I. 2006) (standard of review for excited‑utterance admissibility)