State v. Xavier Vidot, 253 A.3d 401

On July 18, 2017 a burned human corpse found; decedent identified as Valdez Loiseau, who had been living with Melonie Perez and her son, defendant Xavier Vidot.
On July 17, 2017 Valdez and Melonie had a violent confrontation at 15 Edgewood Avenue; Vidot shot and killed Valdez during/after the altercation. Vidot claimed self-defense at trial.
After the shooting, Vidot and Melonie wrapped the body, transported it to Massachusetts with James Clark, and set it on fire; Clark testified about Vidot admitting the shooting and observing the burning.
A jury acquitted Vidot of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder and of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence causing death.
Vidot filed a motion for a new trial and appealed, arguing (1) the trial justice should have declared a mistrial for Confrontation Clause and improper-closing-argument reasons, and (2) the trial justice erred in denying a new trial by misapplying the duty-to-retreat rule to his self-defense claim.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding Vidot waived some appellate objections and that the trial justice did not misconceive material evidence in denying a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause / admission of out-of-court statements (reference to Jeremy Palmer)	State: prosecutor’s questioning and references were proper and probative.	Vidot: referencing Palmer’s out-of-court testimonial statements violated Confrontation Clause and prejudiced jury; mistrial required.	Waived for failure to object at trial; appellate claim not preserved, so no mistrial warranted.
Improper closing argument (prosecutor’s scientific/physics assertions about reaction time and stippling)	State: closing argument was fair commentary on evidence.	Vidot: prosecutor injected personal/scientific assertions not in evidence, prejudicing jury; mistrial required.	Waived for failure to object/request cautionary instruction; trial justice’s lack of sua sponte mistrial proper.
Motion for new trial — self-defense and duty to retreat	State: trial evidence supported jury verdict; duty to retreat applicable; trial justice properly assessed credibility and evidence weight.	Vidot: evidence indisputably supports self-defense; trial justice misapplied duty-to-retreat and overlooked material evidence.	Denial of new trial affirmed. Trial justice applied correct standard, independently reviewed credibility/evidence, and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence; Vidot’s duty-to-retreat argument was waived on appeal.

State v. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2020) (standard for mistrial review and raise-or-waive requirement)
State v. Mensah, 227 A.3d 474 (R.I. 2020) (raise-or-waive rule for appellate review)
State v. Silva, 685 A.2d 1072 (R.I. 1996) (sua sponte mistrial only for manifest necessity)
State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454 (R.I. 2013) (requirement of specific objection at trial)
State v. Stokes, 200 A.3d 144 (R.I. 2019) (standard for trial-justice review of motions for new trial)
State v. Johnson, 199 A.3d 1046 (R.I. 2019) (deferential review when trial justice articulates adequate grounds denying new trial)
State v. Gomez, 116 A.3d 216 (R.I. 2015) (articulates steps trial justice must take when acting as thirteenth juror)