State v. Juan Rivera.
No. 2024-384-C.A. (P1/22-825AG)
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
July 3, 2026
v. :
Juan Rivera. :
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 (401) 222-3258 or Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
O P I N I O N
Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court. The defendant, Juan Rivera, appeals from a judgment of conviction after having been found guilty of (1) first-degree murder, (2) conspiracy, (3) discharge of a firearm when committing a crime of violence, (4) possession of a firearm by a person prohibited from doing so, (5) carrying a firearm without a license or permit, and (6) felony assault and/or battery. On appeal, the defendant assigns three claims of error to the trial justice: (1) she erred in finding that the state properly authenticated certain surveillance footage; (2) she erred in allowing hearsay testimony under the “good faith” exception set forth in
I
Facts and Travel1
On Saturday morning, September 25, 2021, Julio Castro went to Roque‘s Café on Broad Street in Providence (the café) for breakfast, as was his daily routine. While he was there, he saw Jorge Garcia enter the restaurant. Garcia arrived with his employer, Arturo Walker, between 7:45 and 8:00 a.m. The two were there for breakfast, as they had been doing every Saturday that summer, before going to work setting up “[b]ouncy houses” for multiple parties that day. Castro had known Garcia since he was around fourteen or fifteen years old; however, he had not seen Garcia for years prior to that morning, and he did not know Walker. Castro and Garcia said “[w]hat‘s up to each other[,]” and had a friendly exchange.
About two weeks before this encounter, defendant, who was also a friend of Castro, had inquired about Garcia to Castro. Specifically, defendant had asked Castro if he knew Garcia. Castro told defendant that he knew him and asked why defendant was asking. The defendant informed Castro that he wanted to speak to Garcia “[a]bout sending him drugs * * *.” When Castro saw Garcia at the café, he
While Castro was texting defendant, Garcia was still in the café sitting at a table near Castro. Castro remained at the café and made “[s]mall talk” with Garcia as he finished his breakfast. Once he finished, Castro ordered takeout to bring to the mother of his child.
Walker thought nothing of the conversation between Garcia and Castro; he explained at trial that “[t]hey were just saying hi like they were normal friends.” As the two conversed, Walker ordered his breakfast and sat down. Walker and Garcia ate their food while Castro eventually got up and left the café.
When Walker and Garcia finished their meal, they walked to the counter to return their plates, and Walker placed an order for oatmeal to go. They remained at the counter, which was close to the door of the establishment, while they waited to receive their bill and the oatmeal, which Walker said took longer than usual that day. Walker then described what happened next:
“I was sitting down and all I hear was one shot. And I believe the first shot he missed because it hit the fridge. I think there‘s a fridge behind [Garcia] because that‘s all I remember. All I hear was one shot. I went blind -- I went deaf. And when I got up, [Garcia] was on the floor bleeding out.”
Garcia was brought to Rhode Island Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 12:21 p.m. that same day. The manner of death was determined to be homicide caused by multiple gunshot wounds.
At about the same time as the shooting occurred, Castro “dropped the food off” at the home of his child‘s mother and quickly left for work as a mechanic at his garage. While he was on his way, he received a call from an employee of the café informing him that Garcia “had got killed[,]” which caused Castro to turn around “to go see what happened.” He then received another phone call, this time from defendant, who sounded “out of breath“; defendant said “[t]hat they were going to catch him.” Castro hung up the phone. He received yet another call, this time from his close childhood friend, Josue Calderon, who informed Castro that defendant “had did some crazy shit.”
Walker called emergency services after the shooting, and the Providence police arrived at the café around 9 a.m. Detective Theodore Michael was one such
Detective Michael offered that, on the morning of the shooting, he was able to immediately determine that the café had a “DVR system” that contained a hard drive, and he was also able to conclude that the DVR system was operational because he was “able to play back and see the incident at hand.” He then established that the cameras were “motion-based[,]” meaning that the system would record and save video footage when it detected motion. Utilizing an application to which he had access through the United States Secret Service, Det. Michael was also able to reach
The video footage from the café‘s hard drive was offered as state‘s exhibit 22, which Det. Michael testified was a fair and accurate representation of what he had retrieved on the morning of the shooting. Exhibit 22 consisted of surveillance footage from all the cameras located in or around the café, of which there were eleven. The footage included recordings from both the interior and the exterior of the café.
At trial, defendant objected to the admission of that video evidence based on a lack of an adequate foundation. The jury was excused, and defense counsel argued that no one had testified that “the video system was capturing what it was capturing at the time.” He additionally argued that, despite Det. Michael‘s testimony that the DVR system was motion-based, there was footage recorded where no one was
The prosecutor responded by noting that the state had a “very slight” burden to authenticate video evidence pursuant to
In addition to exhibit 22, the state also offered exhibits 24(A), 24(B), and 24(C). Exhibit 24(C) included surveillance footage from the café already contained in exhibit 22; exhibits 24(A) and 24(B) also included surveillance footage and
Based upon the video footage in exhibits 24(A) and 24(B), the police were able to determine how the shooter arrived at the café on the morning of September 25, 2021. They viewed a red Toyota with a black hood rendezvous with a black Dodge Ram that was parked on Booth Street. The driver of the black Dodge Ram exited his vehicle and then entered the passenger side of the red Toyota. The red Toyota then drove to Wiggins Village. The two occupants exited from the vehicle and “walk[ed] through the rear yards of Wiggins Village towards a fence that leads to Roque‘s Caf[é].” Both of the men hopped over the fence and ended up near a McDonald‘s. At that point, the driver of the red Toyota turned back and returned to the driver‘s seat of that vehicle, while the eventual shooter continued walking. The
The police were able to zoom in on the video footage of the black Dodge Ram and capture a license plate number, which indicated it was registered to defendant. However, the police were unable to obtain clear footage of the license plate on the red Toyota. As a result, on October 1, 2021, the police disseminated an e-mail asking officers to be on the lookout for a red Toyota with a black hood that had been involved in a homicide. The next day, on October 2, 2021, an officer reported that she had previously taken a domestic report on or about September 19, 2021, where the complaining witness, Isamarys Segura, stated that her boyfriend, Calderon, was in possession of a red Toyota with a black hood. At that point, the police focused their inquiry on defendant and Calderon.
Castro testified that defendant had expressed concern that there were warrants out for defendant‘s arrest and that defendant and Calderon needed to flee to Florida. Segura testified that, as of October 5, 2021, Calderon was no longer in possession of the red Toyota and that he had explained to her that defendant “was going to sell the car for him.” That statement came in without any objection. For reasons not clear from the record, Calderon passed away later that month; his funeral was held on October 23, 2021.
The defendant‘s jury trial lasted from March 6, 2024, to March 15, 2024, at the conclusion of which defendant was found guilty of all counts brought against him. On July 2, 2024, defendant received two life sentences, to be served consecutively, for the murder of Garcia (count one) and for the discharge of a firearm when committing a crime of violence (count three). He additionally received ten years for conspiracy (count two), ten years for illegally possessing a firearm (count four), ten years for carrying a firearm or pistol without a license or permit (count five), and six years for felony assault and/or battery (count six)—all to be served concurrently with his life sentence on count one. This appeal followed.
Standard of Review
“It is a basic principle that the determination of whether an out-of-court statement meets an exception to the hearsay rule is within the trial justice‘s discretion.” State v. Aponte, 317 A.3d 745, 749 (R.I. 2024) (quoting State v. White, 296 A.3d 692, 701 (R.I. 2023)). “A trial justice‘s ruling will be upheld unless abuse of discretion that prejudices the complaining party is shown.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting White, 296 A.3d at 701). However, the determination of whether the statement of an unavailable witness is testimonial pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is reviewed de novo by this Court. See State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 642 (R.I. 2006).
“When an issue concerning the admission or exclusion of trial evidence is properly preserved for appellate review, this Court employs an abuse of discretion standard of review.” State v. Esdel, 317 A.3d 756, 766 (R.I. 2024) (quoting State v. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482, 493 (R.I. 2020)). “We have also stated that ‘we will reverse a trial justice‘s ruling on the admissibility of evidence only where it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.‘” Id. (quoting Doyle, 235 A.3d at 493).
Discussion
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial justice first erred by admitting exhibits 22 and 24(A)-(C) into evidence because a proper foundation could not be laid to authenticate them without testimony from either a custodian or a percipient witness verifying the accuracy of the video footage. Additionally, defendant contends that two statements made by the now-deceased Calderon should not have come into evidence under the good-faith exception to the rule against hearsay because they were neither based upon personal knowledge, nor did they contain “indicia of reliability.” Finally, defendant submits that the trial justice abused her discretion in determining defense counsel “opened up the door” for Segura to provide testimony about “the word on the streets” on redirect after he attacked her credibility on cross-examination. We discuss each issue raised seriatim.
Authentication
Before beginning our discussion on whether exhibits 22 and 24(A)-(C) were properly authenticated, we first note that “we have said on innumerable occasions, a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.” State v. Cable, 348 A.3d 1287, 1293 (R.I. 2026) (quoting State v. Tavares, 312 A.3d 449, 458 (R.I. 2024)). “Moreover, ‘in order to satisfy the strictures of our raise-or-waive rule, an evidentiary objection must be
The defendant argues that ”
After a thorough review of the record, we are not satisfied that defendant preserved that broad contention to be considered on appeal. Before trial began, defendant presented a motion in limine seeking to exclude all surveillance footage regarding the September 25, 2021 incident. He did so on the basis that the videos were “cherry picked” and that “[a]s the videos have been manipulated, omitted and selectively chosen by the detectives, prior to them being provided to the defendant,
The defendant did properly object to the admission of exhibit 22 at trial, arguing that a percipient witness was necessary to authenticate the surveillance footage. However, the objection to exhibit 24(A)-(C) is more limited. Upon the state moving to admit that exhibit, defense counsel stated, “Your Honor, based on our previous argument, we renew our objection for the same reasons * * *.” (Emphasis added.) The trial justice then sought clarification on defendant‘s objection, asking, “Are you objecting to other portions other than what was set forth in [e]xhibit 22 that may be part of this [e]xhibit 24?” The defense counsel responded, “Your Honor, we originally objected to these videos because it contained a portion of 22, Your Honor. So we‘re just going to renew the same objection that we made earlier.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, defendant limited his objection with respect to exhibit 24 insofar as it contained the same footage as exhibit 22. In other words, as discussed infra, defendant‘s objection to exhibit 24 is limited to the contents of exhibit 24(C).
We are satisfied that Det. Michael‘s testimony was sufficient to authenticate the surveillance footage of exhibit 22, and by extension, channels one and five of exhibit 24(C).
In Pulphus, we first recognized that images from automatic cameras may be used as substantive evidence rather than just demonstrative evidence. Pulphus, 465 A.2d at 157, 161. In that opinion, we provided some guidelines on how such evidence may be authenticated:
“The foundation required for the admission of a photograph as a ‘silent witness’ is obviously different from the foundation required for demonstrative evidence. The party seeking to admit the photograph must be able to establish its competency and authenticity. In making this showing in a case such as this, where the photographs are taken by an automatic camera, the trial justice should look for reliable evidence that verifies the accuracy of the photograph. Such evidence includes but is not limited to (1) testimony that the photograph has not been altered in any significant respect, (2) testimony on how the camera was activated, (3) evidence of the time interval between frames, if applicable, (4) evidence of the date the photographs were taken, (5) the chain of custody of the film after its removal from the camera, and (6) testimony of a competent witness who can explain what the photograph portrays even though he was not present when the photograph was taken.” Id. at 161.
In the case at bar, Det. Michael provided testimony on many of those points.
Although Det. Michael did concede that it may be possible to edit video footage in read-only format, he noted that he would not be able to do so despite his extensive training in digital forensics. Specifically, he related, “I‘m sure it can be done. Not by me, but I‘m sure there‘s somebody out there that can do it.” Additionally, defendant has presented no developed argument that the surveillance
Likewise, we cannot say the trial justice abused her discretion in admitting exhibit 22 in its entirety, or the inclusion of channels one and five in exhibit 24(C), because it was “reasonably probable[,]” based on Det. Michael‘s expert testimony, “that the evidence is what [the state] proclaim[ed] it to be.” Esdel, 317 A.3d at 777 (quoting Mulcahey, 219 A.3d at 739).
The defendant next claims that the trial justice erred by allowing into evidence certain statements of Calderon, through the testimony of Castro and Segura, under the “good faith” exception of
The defendant originally moved to exclude any statements from Calderon in a motion in limine because, he argued, “the statements are inadmissible hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception.” However, as previously noted, a motion in limine is not sufficient to preserve an issue for review on appeal and “it is incumbent upon counsel to raise timely and appropriate evidentiary objections throughout the trial in order to preserve the issues for appeal.” Cable, 348 A.3d at 1293 (quoting Mensah, 227 A.3d at 483). Here, defense counsel failed to make contemporaneous objections to those statements when they were elicited at trial.
Regarding Castro‘s testimony, the record reveals the following:
“Q So you hung up with [defendant]. [Calderon] calls you.
“A Yes.
“Q Did [Calderon] call you on the normal number he used?
“A Yes.
“Q And he spoke to you?
“A Yes.
“Q And at that time, what did he say?
“A He stated that he had did some crazy shit.
“Q He said he did some crazy shit?
“A That Juan did.
“Q Did he use the name Juan?
“A Yes.”
Defense counsel failed to object to this testimony as it occurred. The same is true regarding the testimony of Segura:
“Q You testified earlier that [Calderon] drove a red Toyota Corolla.
“A Yes.
“Q And do you remember if he was still in the possession of that car that night, October 5th, 2021?
“A No.
“Q What did he tell you happened with the car?
“A That he -- it disappeared. He was going to sell it.
“Q Did he say anybody was involved in its disappearance?
“A Yeah.
“Q Who?
“A He said [defendant] was going to sell the car for him.
“Q [The defendant] was going to sell the car for him.
“A Yes.
“Q So on October 5th he was no longer in possession of the car?
“A No.”
Because defense counsel failed to timely object when those statements were elicited, the trial justice was not alerted to the alleged error, and we cannot say that she abused her discretion in allowing those statements to come in. See Barros, 148 A.3d at 172. Therefore, defendant has waived any argument on appeal regarding those statements. Id.
“The Word on the Streets”
Finally, defendant submits that the trial justice erred in overruling his objection regarding Segura‘s testimony on redirect examination about “the word on the streets.” In an attempt to, ostensibly, discredit Segura‘s testimony, by
“Q And everything you learned about this case, you learned from the street, isn‘t that correct?
“A Yes, that‘s correct.
“Q You have no personal knowledge of anything about this case, isn‘t that correct?
“A That‘s correct.
“Q Again, everything you learned you learned from the streets, not from personal knowledge, isn‘t that correct?
“A Yes.”
On redirect examination, the state began to inquire about the so-called “word on the streets“:
“Q Do you also remember a question on cross-examination that everything you know about what happened to [Garcia] you knew from the streets?
“A Yes.
“Q Based on that information, do you trust [Castro] still?
“A Somewhat, yes.
“Q Well, based on the knowledge that you have from the streets, was he involved in the conspiracy to kill [Garcia]?
“A No.
“[Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.
“THE COURT: Overruled. You opened up the door.
“Q Based on what you know from the streets, did [Castro] have anything to do with the conspiracy to kill [Garcia]?
“A No.
“* * *
“Q Based on what you know from the streets, who was involved with the murder of [Garcia]?
“A [The defendant].”
The defendant now argues that the trial justice incorrectly overruled his objection based on opening the door because his questions were focused on Segura‘s personal knowledge, whereas the state‘s questions on redirect exceeded that scope and allowed for the introduction of inadmissible hearsay.
We need not consider the merits of that argument. It is clear from the record that defense counsel did not object to the state‘s line of inquiry based on hearsay grounds; rather, he objected to the question of whether Castro was involved in the shooting based upon speculation. Because there was no specific hearsay objection raised at the time the statement was elicited, we once more hold that this line of argument has been waived. See Barros, 148 A.3d at 172 (“Moreover, ‘in order to satisfy the strictures of our raise-or-waive rule, an evidentiary objection must be sufficiently focused so as to call the trial justice‘s attention to the basis for said objection.‘“) (deletion omitted) (quoting Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d at 30). Nor did
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, and the record of this case shall be returned thereto.
State v. Juan Rivera.
No. 2024-384-C.A. (P1/22-825AG)
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK‘S OFFICE
July 3, 2026
OPINION COVER SHEET
| Title of Case | State v. Juan Rivera. |
| Case Number | No. 2024-384-C.A. (P1/22-825AG) |
| Date Opinion Filed | July 3, 2026 |
| Justices | Suttell, C.J., Robinson, Lynch Prata, Long, and Flaherty (ret.), JJ. |
| Written By | Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell |
| Source of Appeal | Providence County Superior Court |
| Judicial Officer from Lower Court | Associate Justice Kristin E. Rodgers |
| Attorney(s) on Appeal | For State: Brendan P. Sullivan Department of Attorney General For Defendant: Richard J. Ratcliffe, Esq. |
SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)