State v. Donald GreenslitState v. Donald Greenslit
Case Information
*1 Supreme Court No. 2013-290-C.A. (P1/12-1092ADV) State :
v. :
Donald Greenslit. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 222- 3258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court No. 2013-290-C.A. (P1/12-1092ADV) State :
v. :
Donald Greenslit. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
O P I N I O N
Justice Robinson, for the Court. The defendant, Donald Greenslit, appeals from a judgment of conviction rendered after a jury trial held in the Providence County Superior Court on the following counts: Count One, the first-degree murder of Stacie Dorego, in violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 11-23-1, 11-23-2, and G.L. 1956 § 12-29-5; Count Two, the failure to report the death of Stacie Dorego with the intention of concealing a crime, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 23- 4-7(f); Count Three, the obstruction of a firefighter while in the execution of his duty, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-32-1; and Count Four, the violation of a no-contact order, in violation of §§ 12-29-4 and 12-29-5. On appeal to this Court, the defendant contends that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. I
Facts and Travel On March 29, 2012, a Providence County grand jury indicted defendant on the above- referenced charges of which he was eventually convicted. A jury trial was held over two weeks in March of 2013. We summarize below the salient aspects of that trial.
A
The Testimony of Jami Ouellette
Jami Ouellette, the sister of the murder victim, Stacie Dorego, testified that, in 2012, Ms. Dorego lived at 16 Pershing Road in Johnston. Ms. Ouellette further testified that she spoke to defendant when he telephoned her a few weeks before Ms. Dorego’s death. She stated that, at the time of that phone call, it had been “rare” for him to call her; she said that he did so approximately once every four months. She testified that defendant told her that he was concerned about his children and that he was unable to enter the home where they resided because of a restraining order. She stated that it was “very difficult to understand” defendant in the course of that phone call; she added that defendant was “kind of going on and on, repeating himself.” She further stated that she offered to call the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), but that defendant told her not to do so. Ms. Ouellette testified that defendant said that he could not contact DCYF, in spite of her suggestion that he do so. It was her further testimony that defendant told her “not to worry because [his] mom had money and was able to take care of the kids * * * and the kids would be fine.”
B
The Testimony of Francis O’Brien
Francis O’Brien, a friend of defendant, testified that, on the morning of January 22, 2012, defendant left him a “vague” message, indicating that he had the “best news in the world” for him and that he needed his help. Mr. O’Brien testified that he went to 16 Pershing Road, where defendant was at that time, and he observed that defendant was “very happy.” He also stated that defendant told him that Ms. Dorego had “taken off with a boyfriend to an island * * *.” He *4 further stated that defendant discussed with him the possibility of his moving to the house at 16 Pershing Road.
C
The Testimony of Chiara Scarcella
Chiara Scarcella testified that she lived at 14 Pershing Road—i.e., next door to 16 Pershing Road. It was her testimony that it was not uncommon for defendant to come to her house and “ask to use things.” She testified that, on January 22, 2012, defendant came to her house several times during the day.
Ms. Scarcella testified that, upon returning home from doing an errand on the evening of January 22, she smelled smoke and saw that the kitchen of 16 Pershing Road was filled with smoke. She stated that she went into the 16 Pershing Road house because she knew that children were inside and she wanted them to get out. She stated that, once she was in the house, defendant told her that he was burning wood because the children were cold and that he had “everything under control.” It was her testimony that defendant’s demeanor was “odd” and “nervous” during their conversation; she added that he seemed “[a]ngry that [she] was in the house.”
Ms. Scarcella stated that she then left the 16 Pershing Road house and her cousin called the Fire Department. She testified that, when the police officers and firefighters arrived, defendant was “very mad” and said: “‘Why did you call the cops?’” She noted that he looked “panicked” and was pacing. She said that defendant told the firefighters that there were no children in the house, although she knew that two children were there. She stated that, when defendant was speaking to the firefighters about the children not being in the house, they were attempting to enter; she testified that defendant was blocking them with his body by standing in *5 the middle of the doorway. She further testified that his blocking activity as he stood in the doorway prevented a firefighter from entering the house for about forty seconds; she added that, when a particular firefighter learned that there were children in the house, he pushed defendant out of the way.
D
The Testimony of Chief Ronald Castelli
Ronald Castelli, a Battalion Chief in the Johnston Fire Department, testified that on January 22 he was called to 16 Pershing Road due to a report of smoke coming from a dwelling. Chief Castelli testified that, upon arriving at that address, he observed smoke filling one of the rooms. He stated that he went to the side door, which defendant opened. He testified that defendant told him that there was smoke in the house due to the fact that he had been lighting the fireplace while the flue was not fully open. Chief Castelli testified that he told defendant that he wanted to get the children out of the house and then help him ventilate the home. Chief Castelli stated that defendant was “very adamant” that he did not want help. Chief Castelli testified that he had to put defendant “up against the refrigerator” and that he told him that they were going to help him in spite of his protests. He testified that, after this confrontation with defendant, he exited the house. He further testified that he later saw his fellow firefighter, Lieutenant Paul Brazenor, escort defendant out of the house. Chief Castelli added that defendant’s demeanor was “angry” and that he was insistent about wanting to stay in the house.
E
The Testimony of Lieutenant Paul Brazenor
Lieutenant Paul Brazenor of the Johnston Fire Department testified that, after arriving at 16 Pershing Road, he first encountered defendant when he opened the door to the basement and *6 saw him coming up the cellar stairs. He testified that that first encounter was “uneventful;” he added that he escorted defendant out of the home and said: “‘Let us do our job. I’ll take you outside, get you some help. Let us do what we do.’” Lieutenant Brazenor further testified that he made his way to the cellar door again and, when he opened it, he was met by defendant at the top of the stairs. He stated that he began yelling at defendant, telling him that he was in the way of the firefighters and saying: “‘I told you to get out of the house. What are you doing here? You need to leave now.’” He testified that he spun defendant around, forcibly escorting him down the hallway while screaming at him and forcibly bringing him outside. Lieutenant Brazenor further testified that defendant said: “‘It’s not a problem. Why are you guys doing this to me? I don’t see the problem.’” He characterized defendant as “very despondent” and said that he did not come with him willingly and was “dragging his feet a little bit.”
Upon returning to the basement, Lieutenant Brazenor discovered what were later confirmed to be the remains of Stacie Dorego.
F The Testimony of Kevin Brady Kevin Brady, a police officer in the Johnston Police Department, testified that, as Lieutenant Brazenor of the Johnston Fire Department was escorting defendant out of the house, he said: “‘Would somebody please detain this guy? He keeps coming back into the house.’” Officer Brady testified that it appeared that Lieutenant Brazenor was forcibly escorting defendant out of the house. Officer Brady stated that he then detained defendant by standing in front of him and keeping him in a “confined area.” He testified that defendant looked at the house and said several times in an “aggressive” tone: “‘Get out of my f* * *ing house. I’m a good father.’” Officer Brady characterized defendant as having been “belligerent.”
G
The Testimony of Alex Boisclair
Alex Boisclair, who was detained with defendant at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), testified that defendant had shared the details of the murder with him. [1] He testified that defendant told him that, around Christmastime of 2011, he had seen an e-mail from Ms. Dorego to one of her friends in which she stated that she had been unfaithful to defendant for the previous two years. Mr. Boisclair further testified that defendant told him that he had spoken to Ms. Dorego’s sister “about if anything happened to him or her, meaning Stacie [Dorego], that the kids would be all set with her, she’d take care of them.” Mr. Boisclair testified that defendant said that, since Christmastime, he had been planning for the care of his children in the event that he and Ms. Dorego could no longer care for them.
Mr. Boisclair said that defendant told him that, at the time when the crimes at issue were committed, Ms. Dorego had been on the bed and had asked defendant to “join her in bed.” He said that defendant told him that he had said to Ms. Dorego, “No, it’s not going to happen” and she responded: “Why not?” He testified that defendant said that Ms. Dorego then sat up and moved off the bed towards him. Mr. Boisclair stated that defendant told him that he then “grabbed the knife and * * * stabbed her five times.”
*8 Mr. Boisclair testified that, during their time together at the ACI, defendant displayed no remorse and that it was “almost as if [Ms. Dorego’s death] was weight off his shoulders;” he characterized defendant’s emotional state as “excited.”
H
The Testimony of Dr. Christina Stanley
Doctor Christina Stanley, the Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Rhode Island, testified that she performed an examination of the remains found at 16 Pershing Road. She stated that a definitive identification was made to the effect that the remains were those of Stacie Dorego. She further testified that there were three detectable stab wounds in Ms. Dorego’s heart, which had caused her death. Doctor Stanley stated that the manner of death was “homicide.”
I
The Verdict and Subsequent Motion for New Trial
The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty on all four counts. [2] He was sentenced to the following terms: on Count One, life imprisonment; on Count Two, five years to serve; on Count Three, one year to serve; and on Count Four, one year to serve. Each of the latter three sentences is to be served consecutively.
The defendant having moved for a new trial, on March 27, 2013, a hearing was held on that motion, at the conclusion of which the trial justice denied the motion. A timely notice of appeal was filed.
*9 II
Standard of Review
When addressing a motion for a new trial which posits that the weight of the evidence
was inadequate to support a conviction, the trial justice “acts as a thirteenth juror and exercises
independent judgment on the credibility of witnesses and on the weight of the evidence.” State
v. Hie,
This Court has indicated that, with respect to a trial justice’s ruling on a motion for new
trial, the “record should reflect a few sentences of the [trial] justice’s reasoning on each point.”
Hie,
When we review a trial justice’s denial of a motion for a new trial, “[i]f the trial justice
has complied with [the above-summarized] procedure and articulated adequate reasons for
denying the motion, his or her decision will be given great weight and left undisturbed unless the
trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence or otherwise was clearly wrong.”
Garrett,
Analysis On appeal, defendant contends that the trial justice erred when she conducted a review of the weight of the evidence and concluded that it was adequate to support the conviction for first- degree murder and obstruction of a firefighter while in the execution of his duty. [3] Specifically, defendant argues that the “[s]tate failed to present evidence of premeditation sufficient to justify a conviction for first degree murder.” Furthermore, with respect to the obstruction charge, defendant argues that he had not been told that he could not reenter his home when he encountered Lieutenant Brazenor on the basement stairs for a second time, and he points to the fact that he did not reenter the home once he had been instructed not to go back inside.
In the instant case, the trial justice adhered to the requisite three-step analysis, to which
she explicitly alluded at the outset of her ruling on defendant’s motion for a new trial. See
generally Gonzalez,
The trial justice began by summarizing the testimony and evidence presented at trial.
Next, the trial justice engaged in the first step of the three-step analysis by considering the
evidence in light of the jury charge. See Hie, 93 A.3d at 974; Gonzalez, 56 A.3d at 102;
Adefusika,
With respect to the charge of obstruction of a firefighter, the trial justice noted that, after Lieutenant Brazenor encountered defendant for the first time, he escorted him out of the house and asked him to let the firefighters do their job, but that when Lieutenant Brazenor attempted to enter the basement a second time, defendant was again at the top of the stairs. The trial justice noted that Lieutenant Brazenor became angry with defendant, forcibly removed him from the home, and asked other officers to detain defendant because he was obstructing him. The trial justice also noted that defendant’s “manner of interaction” with the firefighters was reflected in *13 Chief Castelli’s testimony that he had to move defendant out of the way so that a firefighter could remove the children from the home. In the trial justice’s view, that evidence was sufficient to support the charge of obstructing the firefighters.
The trial justice completed the second step of the required analysis by independently assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. See Hie, 93 A.3d at 974; Gonzalez, 56 A.3d at 102; Adefusika, 989 A.2d at 480. She said that she found all the witnesses to be credible. Notably, the trial justice indicated that she believed Lieutenant Brazenor and Chief Castelli and concluded that they were “credible as to their observations on that evening.” She also determined that Ms. Ouellette was credible and was “telling the truth.” The trial justice noted that Mr. Boisclair was the only witness whose credibility was called into question by defendant at trial. Nevertheless, the trial justice found Mr. Boisclair to be “credible” and “truthful;” she added that, although Mr. Boisclair had initially sought to use the information shared with him by defendant as a “get-out-of-jail card,” he stated that he decided to testify, even though he did not gain anything by doing so, because it was “the right thing to do.” The trial justice further noted that, at the time Mr. Boisclair disclosed the information to the Johnston Police, some of it was not publicly known, so that he could have learned of it only from defendant.
Next, the trial justice completed the third step of the analysis by determining whether she
would have reached a different result from that reached by the jury. See Hie,
Accordingly, the trial justice denied defendant’s motion for a new trial. We do not perceive any error in the trial justice’s application of the three-step analysis or in her agreement with the jury’s verdict.
Although the trial justice addressed and dealt with the motion for a new trial in a
completely proper manner, we have chosen in this instance to opine further about two specific
contentions raised on appeal by defendant. He argues that the “[s]tate failed to present evidence
of premeditation sufficient to justify a conviction for first degree murder.” See State v.
Rodriguez,
The defendant further contends that Mr. Boisclair’s testimony establishes “a fleeting intent” on defendant’s part that was “contemporaneous with the act of stabbing Ms. Dorego,” rather than premeditation. It should be recalled, however, that the trial justice did not rely solely on Mr. Boisclair’s testimony regarding the murder itself, but rather looked to the timing of the discovery of Ms. Dorego’s purported infidelity, which coincided with defendant’s phone call to Ms. Ouellette.
The defendant also contends that his phone conversation with Ms. Ouellette could not establish premeditation because it was merely an expression of his concern for his children. However, the trial justice looked not only to the content of the conversation, but also the timing of the phone call as evidence that he had planned the murder with premeditation. Accordingly, it is our view that the trial justice did not err when she determined that the evidence was adequate to support a conviction for first-degree murder.
With respect to the conviction for obstruction of a firefighter, defendant argues that he was not explicitly told that he could not return inside the house when Lieutenant Brazenor first encountered him on the basement stairs and escorted him out of the home. On that basis, he argues that he was not obstructing the firefighters by returning to the basement. The defendant points to the fact that, after being removed from the home a second time, he complied with Lieutenant Brazenor’s instruction not to go back inside, and he also notes that there was no testimony that the firefighters were “actually hindered in any way.” In defendant’s view, his being “merely present” inside the house at 16 Pershing Road is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for obstruction. The trial justice reasoned that defendant’s presence on the basement *16 stairs during his first encounter with Lieutenant Brazenor was sufficient to support the obstruction conviction. She stated that, unless “[Lieutenant Brazenor could] somehow walk through defendant, [defendant’s presence there was] an obstruction.” The trial justice found defendant’s return to the basement stairs after having already been removed to be of even greater significance because Lieutenant Brazenor was again distracted from his duties as a firefighter in order to remove defendant from the house for a second time. The trial justice further noted that defendant’s “whole manner of interaction with the firefighters [was] also shown by Chief Castelli, who had moved him out of the way to even let the firefighter in to get the children out of the house.” Moreover, although the trial justice did not specifically address whether defendant “hindered” the firefighters, defendant’s return to the basement stairs after being removed from the home certainly impeded Lieutenant Brazenor in the execution of his official duty. See DeFusco v. Brophy, 112 R.I. 461, 464, 311 A.2d 286, 288 (1973) (defining “obstruction” in the context of § 11-32-1 as meaning “to interpose obstacles or impediments, to hinder, impede, or in any manner intrude or prevent, and this term does not necessarily imply the employment of direct force or the exercise of direct means”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on our review of the record and the trial justice’s application of the three-step analysis and after consideration of the defendant’s several contentions, it is clear to us that the trial justice performed the requisite analysis completely and more than adequately explained her reasoning. We perceive no basis for concluding that the trial justice was either clearly wrong or that she misconceived or overlooked material evidence when she denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we uphold the trial justice’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
IV
Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The record may be remanded to that tribunal.
R HODE I SLAND S UPREME C OURT C LERK ’ S O FFICE Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet TITLE OF CASE: State v. Donald Greenslit.
CASE NO: No. 2013-290-C.A.
(P1/12-1092ADV)
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE OPINION FILED: March 11, 2016
JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. WRITTEN BY: Associate Justice William P. Robinson III SOURCE OF APPEAL: Providence County Superior Court
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT :
Associate Justice Susan E. McGuirl ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For State: Lauren S. Zurier
Department of Attorney General For Defendant: Jodi M. Gladstone, Esq.
Notes
[1] Mr. Boisclair provided information about Ms. Dorego’s death to the Johnston Police Department that was not yet publicly known, but that was consistent with what would be the evidence at trial. An example of the information of that nature that Mr. Boisclair said was conveyed to him by defendant would be the fact that, in the kitchen at 16 Pershing Road, defendant had left a phone book open to a page containing truck rental listings. Detective Joshua Haywood testified that a still photograph of the kitchen, which was taken by investigators and eventually entered into evidence at trial, revealed a phone book lying open to a page containing truck rental listings.
[2] The defendant was found guilty of both the failure to report the death of Stacie Dorego with the intention of concealing a crime and the violation of a no-contact order, but he has not appealed from those convictions.
[3] As we have frequently indicated, a motion for a new trial may be predicated on one of
two different grounds. State v. Clark,