State v. Lassiter

date, months before the valuation in which The defendant Kilberg has failed to sat- any prepayment penalties 10(b)(1). waived isfy for the his responsibility under Rule Moreover, early repayment nothing He we debentures. also find the available Fairway’s contends that 1993 financial record indicate that the trial statement, evidence, overlooked or prepared by Kilberg, did not misconceived erro- neously evidence, prepayment upon improper disclose the relied penalty a con- tingent liability. give failed due to the apprais- deference report. Superior er’s Court judgment transcript Without justice’s of the trial affirmed, is papers therefore and the re- decision, bench we simply unable are Superior to the manded Court. upon ascertain what evidence relied. Kilberg also ascribes error Justices FLAHERTY GOLDBERG justice in not considering outstanding participate. did not loans, including Anjoorian, those to as off- against

sets the value of the An- business.

joorian contends that there no him, shareholder’s loan to and even loan,

if there were such a it would be an corporation

asset of the than an rather

offset. STATE “A determination of whether trans- loan, action is a fide affording bona thus status, the shareholder creditor or a con- Troy LASSITER. capital, tribution representing equity No. 99-434-C.A. debt, rather than requires analysis the facts and circumstances.” 12B William Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Fletcher, Meade Fletcher Cyclopedia of Dec. 2003. § Corporations, Law Private (Perm.Ed., rev.vol.2000). at 41 Again we stymied by complete are the lack of a

record.

“Appraisers given generally are

wide discretion to consider all fac relevant determining

tors in the fair market value.” (R.I. Butler,

Shade v.

1998) (mem.). The findings apprais of an

er are not to be clearly disturbed unless

wrong. Jeffrey, 98 R.I. at 201 A.2d at

It responsibility appellant is the of an

provide Court with so much perform

record as will enable us to review, run

meaningful lest he or she appeal Sup.

risk that be dismissed. 10(b)(1);

Ct.R. 770 A.2d at 833. Kalooski “[wjhats now, moth-

occupants up shouted [expletive]?” According er from car windows: guns appeared two side and passenger one from the front immediately, rear. Almost other from the “a lot” of were fired. Williams “shots” lot adjacent cover in an Andrews dove for overgrown high grass. shooting Andrews stopped, When the Rosin, Providence, Paula for Plaintiff. run, soon jumped began to up and Weisman, Providence, for Aaron Defen- to the collapsed gunshot a wound from dant. drive observing the vehicle chest. After lay away, ran to where his cousin Williams C.J., WILLIAMS, Present: dying. FLANDERS, GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, (Det. Cassidy) Cassidy Detective Glen SUTTELL, and JJ. Department was the the Police Providence first arrive. Williams told Det. officer to OPINION Cassidy and had been that he Andrews GOLDBERG, Justice. in ma- upon driving a fired individuals car; identify he did defendant, roon-colored appeal, Troy Las- (Lassiter defendant), assailants. siter asks this murder, Court to set aside his 1998 con- after Approximately two hours spiracy, upon and assault convictions based shooting, gave a statement formal Williams evidentiary rulings erroneous and a order (Det. Stephen Springer to Detective newly new he trial so introduce dis- Depart- Springer) the Providence Police evidence to support covered his contention ment. Williams told he did not crimes. he commit those “tried to into the car to see who was look * * it, fire saw] but all was [he Facts and Travel were four Although he believed there Shortly July before midnight car, people said he in the Williams (Andrews) 1996, David Andrews and his identify He de- was them. unable cousin, “Bucky” Andre Williams color, with cranberry scribed the car as (Williams), walking along were West Clif- bottom, believing it to be a Ford gray ford in an area known as “Clown- Street Taurus. they proceeded town” in Providence. As street, Monday, returned

down noticed a On next Williams car Concerned, police station and idling to the Providence stoplight. at a He told changed original he knew statement. asked his cousin whether “who (Det. Muir), “I “It Muir replied, ain’t Detective Robert was[.]” car Andrews knowed in the car. I been worry it.” His cous- know who was nobody; don’t about I to tell was the car. was afraid notwithstanding, in’s Williams who assurances According to you happened.” “looking night over his shoul- continued back” Williams, me to wanted approached, “my grandmother slowly der. As the vehicle in the and tell go [who down there standing who was street subjects three of the vehicle, He identified car].” turned to face the closest to (Hazard), Lassiter, Hazard and one of as Derick stopped car. The vehicle (Roberts),1 later, David Roberts he was un- gunshots ments heard and ran to identify able collapsed driver. Williams said outside to find Andrews that Hazard and the trigger bleeding. Lassiter were men, that front passen- Hazard sat (Det. Detective Robert Badessa Bades- ger seat Lassiter sat him. behind He sa) also testified for the He stated state. “louder,” gun described Lassiter’s with dispatched that he to the scene the coming “more fire out of it.” Williams night spent the murder and recovered Hazard, Lassiter, then identified and Rob- cartridge casings on the at the ground from a set photographs erts shown to of West corner Clifford and Pearl Streets. him Det. Muir. pro- Because Williams the cartridge Four of were from a casings police, vided inconsistent to the statements gun, .22-caliber and four from a .45- reliability eyewitness of his gun. caliber He also a shell discovered became the central issue at trial. jacket from a .45-caliber bullet. Detective defendant, along weapon with Hazard and testified Badessa that a .45-caliber Roberts, charged first-degree report would have a much than louder Andrews, murder to murder weapon .22-caliber and that the difference Andrews, assault with to intent murder average per- would be discernible to the and assault son. Detective thought Badessa Williams with intent to murder. Lassiter’s prob- two bullet wounds Andrews suffered case was severed from his that of codefen- caused ably by were a .45-caliber firearm proceeded Septem- dants and he to trial size of the bullet wounds. jury ber 1998.2The reach a failed to ver- (Wraina), Wraina Dale girl- Andrews’s a dict and mistrial was declared. years friend of two and the mother of his child, objection Lassiter was retried a before second testified over defense 4, on November although problems 1998. Besides there were no between witnesses, and defendant, Williams the Andrews and exist- “problems” presented sup- state several witnesses ed between “the section of Lockwood” (Bill Bill) port Providence, its case. William neighborhood, the decedent’s he, Andrews, testified, testified and Williams and “the Lassiters.” She also together evening again objection, of murder. over defense statements Bill Bill just said that the shooting, purportedly by before made before his Andrews he left Andrews and at the corner implicated death that Lassiter’s codefen- acts, of previous Lockwood and West Streets Clifford dants criminal back and started toward home a few In one his Lassiter. series of statements two away. walked, murder, blocks As he noticed a before the Andrews de- weeks individuals, cranberry him past being Taurus drive and turn shot at scribed four Hazard, A including Marrow, onto West Clifford few Street. mo- Dennis originally 1. Williams identified man in the After the state closed its the second case at driver’s side rear seat as David Lassiter in- trial, justice granted trial mo- Roberts’s However, stead of David Roberts. both judgment acquittal. tion Hazard was for belong person, legally names to the same counts, charge except convicted on all named David Roberts but also known as conspiracy to assault Williams with intent to Lassiter. David appeal Hazard’s conviction murder. from his post-sentencing and the denial of a motion for together 2. Hazard Roberts stood trial a new trial was denied in State this Court proceeding the summer of 1998. The first 24, Hazard, (R.I.2002). abruptly July ended in a mistrial on 1998. 797 A.2d 448

HOI Adult imprisonment at the Additionally, tence life “Darky,” and Lamont Lee. murder with An- for the recounted discussion Institutions Wraina a Correctional long conviction, “a then” that he conspiracy, drews time before for years ten * * * Roberts, up” by “stuck who intent twenty years for assault with money. stole his bike and murder. sentences were ordered These judgment convic- concurrently. run A examiner, chief Eliz- The state’s medical 8, January tion entered on (Dr. Laposata, Laposata), tes- abeth M.D. day. appeal an the same filed notice of autopsy on performed tified to an she An- drews. She said that Andrews had two this Court issued On June gunshot body, possibly wounds to his re- Superior remanding order the case to sulting from the same bullet. fatal a based for motion for new trial Court chest, through traveled his includ- wound A hear- upon newly discovered evidence. heart, lungs causing his ing Andrews trial held ing on new motion was Lassiter’s Laposata death. to bleed to Doctor also days August 2001. After two 8 and possible it was for said that Andrews to hearing justice ruled that testimony, and to have suffered chest wound have presented was insufficient running continued distance some before appeal trial. This followed. warrant new collapsing injuries. from She testified below those issues We address the chest wound was the result of dispositive. find to bullet, we be large-caliber either a .88 or a .45.

The defendant throughout maintained mistakenly that Williams identified I him as one of the assailants vehicle. the “The and Lassiters” Lockwood alibi, presented of Lassiter the defense witness, supported by one aunt Bernita Wraina, girlfriend of two the decedent’s (Wilkins), Ann Wilkins who testified that child, years and mother of his testified the p.m. Lassiter was her house from 10 to be- “problems” at trial there p.m. midnight and p.m. 10:50 11:05 of Provi- tween “the Lockwood” section the night p.m., the of murder. At 10:50 Lassiters,” and there were dence “the her buy Lassiter left house to alcoholic problems no between Andrews beverages, fifteen returning some minutes objected The defendant Lassiter on trial. six-pack later with a of beer. According pass the testimony to this and moved to Wilkins, Lassiter was with her at her First, argued grounds. case on two shooting at the time took place. home surprised that he case, close of At the the state’s Lassi- discovery a viola- and that it constituted for a judgment ter’s motion of acquittal tion, second, jury rejected was denied. The Lassiter’s against him. otherwise inadmissible guilty alibi and found Lassiter justice pass and denied the motion to murder, murder, conspiracy to commit cautionary a instruction instead issued and assault with intent murder jury. subsequently filed a Williams.3 Turning to Lassiters’s contention trial, for a new which was denied

motion 4,1998. between 8,1999, that Wraina’s reference trouble January on December On evi- mandatory and the Lassiters” justice a “the Lockwood imposed the trial sen- murder, charge dis- had been intent to 3. Because both Hazard and Roberts were ac- respect to Lassiter. quitted missed with to assault Williams 16(a)(8) Here, denced a violation of Rule only did the state fail to estab- Superior Court Rules of Criminal Proce- lish either Lassiter or Andrews were dure, provided the state defendant with an groups members of the about which Wrai- extensive summary expected testified, Wraina’s na membership and the na- testimony. obligates Rule 16 the state to “problems” ture of the between those provide defendant with summary” “a of a groups mystery. By also was a permitting “expected” witness’s testimony. ap- It is opine prob- witness to that there were parent from the record that the state was lems between “the Lockwood and the Las- not trying impermissible to elicit testimo- siters,” any was left to infer man- ny, but rather had explicitly questioned ner of nefarious association or motive to Wraina whether she was “aware of defendant, none of it shown the state to problems between the defendant and [An- specific be relevant to the charged. crimes - Although response drews].” Wraina’s ex- particularly This evidence is troublesome scope prosecutor’s ceeded the inqui- because the witness stated that there were not, ry, itself, this does in and of establish problems between the neigh- decedent’s a discovery satisfied, violation. We are borhood, Lockwood,” “the and “the Lassi- however, that this evidence was nonethe- ters,” a group that bears the same name as less inadmissible. defendant. A logical inference to be drawn from this statement is that defen- Given Wraina’s statement dant is linked to the Lassiters and there- problem she was unaware of any between fore there was bad blood between de- Andrews, defendant and subsequent her cedent and him. testimony that there was trouble between “the neighborhood Lockwood” and “the We must now determine whether Lassiters” was irrelevant prejudicial. the trial abused his discretion in type Evidence of the at issue here is ad refusing pass in light case of Wrai prosecution missible demon Bolduc, testimony. na’s See State v. strates that the defendant is a member of (R.I.2003) 184, 186 curiam). (per Not group, certain and that there was a prejudicial all potentially statements made direct connection between the defendant’s during require justice the trial membership group that and the crimes situation, declare a mistrial. Id. In this for which the defendant is charged. See justice’s duty the trial was to assess the 777, Phillips, State v. N.M. 128 999 P.2d prejudicial impact of the comment and de 421, (Ct.App.2000) 428 (stating that evi prejudice termine whether the iner was so wrongdoing by parties dence of may third pass adicable that the motion to must be only be admitted to demonstrate the back McDonald, granted. State v. 602 A.2d ground of a crime when there is a “direct (R.I.1992). 923, prejudice 927 If the was link” partic between the evidence and the curable, justice obliged the trial accused). ular charge against the Unless timely issue a effective instruction to a direct connection linking is made jury. Id. defendant, group, alleged and the ac tivity group, probative justice of that value of are We convinced the trial any prejudice concerning group’s appropriately mitigated any activ probably ities will substantially by testimony. be out caused the admission of this weighed by prejudicial its justice jurors effect. Den The trial instructed the State, (Fla.Dist. 754, mark v. 646 they properly So.2d 757 could not consider Wraina’s Ct.App.1994). testimony about “the Lockwood and the

H03 justice Wrai The trial ruled that assessing Lassiters” when the defendant’s pre concerning na’s Andrews’s He said: guilt. pursuant was admissible vious statements charged “The offense relates three 804(c) Rhode Rules to Rule Island Lassiter, Hazard, people: Derick David 804(c) provides that of Evidence. Rule Lassiter; Troy they agreed, they shall person declaration of deceased “[a] conspired illegal act. commit hearsay in evidence as not be inadmissible somebody are not for They responsible good if the that was made court finds feelings. This defendant doesn’t else’s the ac faith before the commencement of any have the —doesn’t have to defend personal knowledge of upon tion and charges ill will others who held previously We have declarant.” happen to come from Lockwood [Street]. 804(c) as well applies that Rule criminal must He defend and the State must Burke, civil State v. 574 cases. See prove beyond a reasonable doubt (R.I.1990) 1217, (citing advisory 1222 A.2d elements offense of 804(c)). to Rule Howev committee’s note commit murder.” 804(c) er, “firmly- because Rule not a are in- We satisfied that this curative hearsay exception,” out-of-court rooted struction, contemporane- given which was admitted into evidence statements be ously testimony, with Wraina’s State v. adequate “indicia of they possess Jackson, 5, (R.I.2000), A.2d Roberts, 56, reliability.” v. Ohio 448 U.S. possibility to foreclose the sufficient (1980); 66, 100 65 L.Ed.2d 597 S.Ct. prejudiced testimony. (R.I. Lynch, 770 A.2d Accordingly, although Wraina’s statement 2001); Burke, at error, contemporaneous constituted in- argues appeal that Wraina’s beyond harmless struction rendered it testimony concerning Andrews’s disclo- doubt. reasonable hearsay sures was inadmissible because requisite did not bear the statements II Burke, reliability. indicia of Decedent Declarations of ad- we affirmed trial court’s Made in Faith Good prior mission of a decedent’s statements dire largely the court held a voir Wraina also testified trial con specific relia- hearing findings and made cerning two statements Andrews made be bility were ruled before the statements fore he died. She testified that about two admissible. Lassiter contends that 18,1996, July Andrews weeks before came specifically failure of the trial house to her with Band-Aids on his left prior state- find that each of Andrews’s and told knee her that while and a possessed ments sufficient of relia- indicia walking friend were from Elmwood Ave bility constituted reversible error. Lockwood, young nue towards four men Although justice trial purportedly agree at “him.” Andrews iden we shot Hazard, prerequisite findings of tified the assailants as Dennis failed to make the Marrow, reliability, a careful review of Lamont Lee and someone she after record, argument conclude that this “Darky.” referred to as Wraina also testi we occasion, appellate properly preserved “a for long fied that on time was another 1996, of proposed An introduction shooting before” the fatal review. extensively was discussed her had these statements drews told that Roberts robbed justice and him stolen at sidebar between trial bicycle. his 1104 justice

counsel. The trial explicitly stated Ill testimony Wraina’s “would have to Relevancy * * * of Andrews’s come as a declaration of a de- * * Prior Statements person ceased The record dis- closes that counsel for defendant faded to Although may not have express any hearsay-based objection to preserved appropriate objec an hearsay admissibility proposed evidence tion to the admission of Andrews’s out-of- during that any point sidebar or at there- Wraina, court statements to relevancy- his only objection after. The posited by de- objection based properly raised and fense counsel concerned the relevancy of preserved.4 argues ap The defendant on evidence the context of co-conspira- peal Wraina’s was irrele liability. tor After the sidebar conference vant engaged establish that he in a defense general objection counsel made a decedent, conspiracy to murder the testimony. Wraina’s Considering the thus the introduction of this con previous pro- extensive discussion of the prejudicial stituted error. posed admissibility of testimony, Wraina’s general objection Lassiter’s was insuffi- Conspiracy is an agreement preserve cient to hearsay-based con- persons “two or more an commit unlaw tention appeal. See R.I.R. Evid. ful perform act or to a lawful act for 103(a)(1) (“Error may not predicated be Mastracchio, purpose.” unlawful State v. * * * upon ruling which admits evidence (R.I.1992). 698, 612 A.2d 706 Once an unless a right party substantial is made, agreement has been no further ac * ** affected, and ruling [i]n case the is tion furtherance of the is evidence, admitting objection one a timely necessary guilty to find a defendant * * * appears record, stating specif- Romano, conspiracy. crime of State v. 456 ground objection, ic specific 746, (R.I.1983). A.2d 757 The state must ground apparent was not from the con- prove the scope existence and of the con text”) added); (emphasis v. State Betten spiracy charged beyond a reasonable court, 1101, 1107, (R.I.1999) 723 A.2d 1108 Mastracchio, doubt. A.2d 706. We 103(a)(1) (citing R.I.R. Evid. to hold- that previously have recognized that there sel “defense counsel general asserted a rather dom will be an explicit direct evidence of specific objection than a [and] act, agreement to commit an unlawful * * * therefore, objection has not been scope conspira the existence and of a Toole, preserved appeal”); for State v. 640 cy “inferentially often must be established (R.I.1994) (same); see also relations, conduct, by proof of the circum Neri, (R.I.1991) State v. 593 A.2d stances, parties.” and actions Id. * * * (“when introduction Gordon, (quoting objected reason, specific to for a other (R.I.1986)). objection for grounds are waived and Here, appeal”). not be raised for the first time on the trial decided that the pass upon prior We therefore decline to defen- statements of the decedent were ad- hearsay-based assignment prove conspiracy. dant’s of error. missible to The trial testimony concerning prior Although pretrial 4. Wraina’s Lassiter did not file a mo- testimony, bad acts of Roberts and Hazard was excluded tion to exclude did Wraina’s pursuant object from the Roberts and Hazard trial to the introduction of this to motions in limine filed those defendants. trial. noted, justice ruled that this testi- ruling stated basis of of the mony was relevant on the issue follows: * * * “there is conspiracy existence of a in car if present is “[Hazard] coconspira- among one of the bad blood Hazard there was bad blood between overlooks the fact that holding tors.” This a inci- prior Andrews] because of [and a of assailants among group Hazard was using dent and is one of the [Hazard] at someone apparently firing who weapons, some evidence that is decedent, suggesting other than the prove conspiracy. a I don’t tends to An- animus was not aimed at Hazard’s think has to be named. [the defendant] drews. and if there participating, He’s there co-conspira- among

bad blood one of the Furthermore, prior these bad acts also tors, amply I think that’s sufficient.” scope that the of the al- fail to establish leged conspiracy included Lassiter. Criti- fail to see how either incident cir- We al- cally, neither Roberts’s nor Hazard’s cumstantially establishes the existence of a implicated leged misconduct involved or that de- conspiracy to murder Andrews any way. presented The state part conspiracy. of that fendant was aware no evidence that Lassiter even was testimony amounted to evidence Wraina’s People transpired. that these acts had See prior uncharged criminal conduct on the Harris, (Col.Ct.App. v. 892 P.2d codefendants, part of the one of whom had 1994) (evidence previous companion’s acquitted prior proceeding. been a conspiracy be- offense admissible to show inadmissibility rale general concerning the knowledge and aware- cause defendant’s prosecutions in criminal of evidence of oth- proved crime whether there prior ness of prove er bad that an individual acts to in the com- agreement engage was an to conformity not bar acted therewith does see also charged); mission of the crime “motive, prove opportuni- such evidence (R.I.1991) Porto, v. 591 A.2d intent, ty, preparation, plan, knowledge, “ part ‘one does not become (holding identity, absence of mistake or accident * * conspiracy by aiding abetting of * * * 404(b). Contrary R.I.R. Evid. conspir unless he knows justice’s ruling, testimony the trial that a ”). prove the It is the state’s burden to acy bicy- codefendant robbed the victim of his scope conspiracy existence and period cle some indeterminate of time— (cit Romano, at 757 agreement. 456 A.2d possibly past, prove years does not —in Ahmadjian, ing State any of forth in Rule the elements set (R.I.1981)). failed to The state 1084-85 404(b), nothing sup- and therefore does between a sufficient nexus demonstrate port the state’s contention that Lassiter support its prior these acts and Lassiter engaged to murder Andrews. testimony was contention that Wraina’s The state also fails demonstrate conspiracy charge against probative of admissibility of Andrews’s statements to him. group that he was shot at Wraina appeal Hazard, suggests The state also that included but not Lassi- men admissibility, ar ground appears ter. It from alternative Wraina’s testimony shooting guing simply that Wraina’s actually that Hazard was not codefendants An- because Lassiter’s shooting in fact relevant Andrews but was Andrews, fact who, had harmed according previously companion, drews’s veracity of to make the Wraina, “tendency run had a previously had tried to probable more As identification Hazard’s child off the road. mother of 1106 ty, simply

than it be without the has not shown would such evidence.” state fads, however, enough The admission completely state to ex- to warrant the of Wrai plain testimony testimony. Bourjaily na’s v. how this corroborates See United States, 175, 2775, 171, 107 of 483 U.S. S.Ct. identification either the co- (1987) or, (citing 97 L.Ed.2d 144 Fed.R.Evid. conspirators importantly, more Lassi- 801(d)(2)(E) proposition for the that Importantly, ter himself. even if we coconspirator are admissi- statements of agreed the state’s contention that only ble if made in furtherance of an ex- prior Roberts’s and Hazard’s bad acts added); isting (emphasis conspiracy) that likely correctly made it more them, Patriarca, 14, 40, v. State 112 R.I. 308 assailants, as the identified this (1973). 300, A.2d 316 premise has no relevance to Williams’s identification of Lassiter. we have not- As “We, courts, like the federal tend to look ed, produce any proof the state failed to attempts to with disfavor on broaden the previous that Lassiter knew of these already pervasive wide-sweeping nets part the victim or an against crimes of Porto, conspiracy prosecution.” of 591 conspiracy they at the unlawful time Patriarca, (quoting A.2d 796 112 R.I. at committed. connecting Without these acts 316). 40, of opin- 308 A.2d at We are that showing Lassiter or he was aware ion that concerning Wraina’s Porto, them, 796, see 591 A.2d prior bad acts of Roberts Hazard was they that state’s contention made it more Moreover, if not even relevant. state likely correctly that Lassiter was identified relevancy for established threshold this ev- is without merit. idence, negligible probative value was its potential its substantially outweighed are mindful al We prejudicial R.I.R. Evid. Ac- effect. leged shooting robbery by the cocon cordingly, the admission of the decedent’s Wraina, spirators, testified to by as was error. statements Wraina uncharged amounted to criminal conduct against that was introduced IV liability establish his vicarious for Springer’s Testimony Detective however, satisfied, those crimes. We are assigns if evidence even was offered The defendant error prove liability, opinion testimony by Det. vicarious was nonethe the admission coconspirator only Springer less A that he believed the state’s inadmissible. eyewitness not truthful vicariously liable for the of anoth when he actions if told Det. that he could coconspirator Springer er those actions were not identi existing fy in the vehicle. The de committed furtherance of an individuals States, v. fendant that the trial erred conspiracy. argues Pinkerton United 647, Springer give permitting 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. U.S. fact, Oliveira, (1946); opinion knew the (R.I.2001). identity gave no assailants when state offered of his shortly first statement after murder. evidence that existed at or Lassiter that Det. im time of these incidents that Roberts contends acting permissibly of that “bolstered” the Hazard were furtherance that, fact, notwithstanding by opining no conspiracy. state offered that he was unable to gene Williams’s statement concerning evidence whatsoever shooters, identify he believed that Accordingly, sis these crimes. even presented “withholding informa- vicarious liabili- Williams was

H07 fact, against tion,” dispositive charges of the defen- thus implying dant, identity imper- knew the of the shooters. Detec- that such Lassiter contends explain Springer permitted tive to the was vouching missible amounted reversible basis of that as follows: belief light previous holdings error. of our as we are con- very specific condemning practice, to what this

“[Williams] was happened walking agree. as he was down the strained approach. street and what he saw the “The determination it I point came to the tried to When lies credibility truthfulness or of witness in the specific be to the faces car or jury.” of the province the within exclusive car, people vague the he became (R.I. 738, Webber, 742 v. 716 A.2d State point give at that and all he would was a 1998) Haslam, v. (quoting basically black I felt dis- face. the (R.I.1995)). 902, “Bolstering” or 905 tance he the car away was from and his “vouching” one witness “of occurs when car, opportunity to view who was the opinion the regarding an truthful fer[s] I he completely was not honest at felt witness’ accuracy ness of another testi point he told me all when he saw bolstering mony.” Impermissible Id. added.) (Emphasis was a black face.” literally even if does not occur the witness admissible, In ruling this evidence the opinion concerning credibility an state trial Springer declared that Det. Id.; testimony. of another witness’s Com opinion was “entitled to render his con- Montanino, 409 Mass. monwealth mind cerning present state of at the (1991). If 567 N.E.2d one wit time he this statement.” took Lassiter “substantive ness’s has same contends that the admission of testi- import” as if another wit it addressed mony “vouching” had the effect of for the it is inadmissible. credibility, ness’s Web witness’s crucial credibility on the issue ber, 716 A.2d at 742. Williams’s identification of defendant as of the According one shooters. to Lassi- Miller, (R.I. In State v. ter, the Springer’s opin- admission of Det. 1996), charged a college coach was ion that Williams was “not sexually assaulting players. one of his completely he first honest” when told the place in allegedly One assault took police that to identify he was unable The the other 1991. Id. at 869. com- shooters implied being was alleged plainant report did not assaults gave honest the second when state- fashion, police timely in a testi- ment in which he named Lassiter as one fied at that she disclosed first Thus, gunmen. defendant con- to her the summer after it assault mother tends that Det. not only ex- happened identify her did assail- pressed his belief that the first witness’s later, when year ant. Id. at 872. A untruthful, statement but he ex- was also officer, spoke mother with a she plained why [the witness] he “felt was not prior daughter’s failed to mention her dis- * * completely vouching honest Id. closure. here, prejudicial was particularly trial, objection at Over defendant’s argues, was because Williams permitted testify, police officer was trial, identify witness to the shooters first, that not uncommon for the accomplished and the vouching important Further, police to have draw out infor- experienced police detective. second, witnesses, and from credibility eyes mation im- appreciate point probably on that fail witnesses often portance they possess allegations of the information child’s of abuse “came across as they speak police vouching). first to the very when credible” amounted information that not “seem that im- This case is also similar to Webber. portant very important to them could be case, Matty, police that a trained to dog Miller, for to know.” A.2d at me 872. presence detect the of flammable acceler- testimony This deemed the Court officer’s ants, a during was used search of defen- impermissible vouching suggest- because it Webber, dant’s motor vehicle. 716 A.2d at ed that the witness’s failure to mention the (Fiore), a 739-40. John B. Fiore Rhode first assault “should not be viewed as ad- investigator, Island State fire marshal was versely credibility.” affecting her Id. We permitted testify that a member of the reiterated that the of the “[d]etermination dog, Mat- Connecticut State Police and his credibility truthfulness or the of witnesses in ty, investigation assisted an arson at province jury.” is the exclusive of a Id. “A defendant’s home. Id. Neither the trainer permitted witness is therefore not to offer dog nor the curator testified and the opinion concerning an of truthfulness any state failed to offer evidence concern- witness, testimony of another even at ing dog’s training. Id. 740-41. opinion given literally when the does not Fiore, According Matty “alerted” to address another credibility.” witness's Id. presence of a flammable accelerant in 905). Haslam, (citing 663 A.2d at the vehicle’s floor mat. Id. at 739-40. Although Springer’s testimony Det. mat subsequently was The floor was seized and not a literal comment on the utilizing gas chromatograph truthfulness tested tech- testimony that nology Williams’s in-court Las- the Rhode Island State Crime gunmen, Laboratory. siter was one of the the detective That test did detect permitted give opinion an concern- flammable accelerant on the mat. Id. at However, ing veracity. Williams’s initial The effect the state called Thomas testimony of this in Haynes, was to inform the certified fire marshal Rhode Connecticut, Springer that Det. believed that who testified Island and, therefore, identify expert could his assailants con- questioned witness. When subsequent that cerning comparing Williams’s statement dis- the results of tests was, fact, closing identity worthy sensitivity dogs gas their relative of trained Further, Springer permit- chromatographs presence of belief. to the of flam- substances, testify opinion: Haynes ted to about the mable basis testified spoke specifici- that because Williams studies demonstrated that canines were ty leading up gas chromatographs about the events to the more sensitive than shooting presence samples.” and the “weak detecting short distance between vehicle, jury, Williams and the he “felt that Id. at 742. The which had been pieces conflicting, completely presented was not honest with two [Williams] * * * yet highly probative pres- me all when he told he saw was evidence—the opinion un- ence of a flammable substance black face.” This or absence vehicle—was thus aided doubtedly primary bolstered state’s defendant’s being determining credibility honest of this evidence contention Williams was by expert opinion dogs when he identified Lassiter as one of the witness samples detecting in his second and more accurate at weak gunmen statement during testimony. his in-court In re of accelerants. We ruled that this testimo- See (R.I. C., impermissibly the evidence ny Jessica 1362-63 bolstered 1997) Matty’s presence to the (holding concerning statement witness that a alert not based accuracy Springer’s testimony an accelerant for the vouching response. objectively Id. manifested observations. dog’s Rather, his belief and the simply he stated We are satisfied that as Miller was not basis of that belief Webber, presented the state that he was being truthful when said explain away damaging of Det. identify gunmen. This testi- unable to by suggesting ini- any objectively mony was not based on tial statement that he was unable to identi- criteria, inju- physical such as measurable fy the shooters should not be viewed as assumptions his as ry, but on instincts is, That adversely affecting credibility. his experienced an officer. because Det. believed identity case, knew the assail- his the In this because was statement, gave witness, ants when he the first the key prosecution credibility his was jury Montanino, too. should We are thus satisfied importance. paramount Springer’s opinion testimony that Det. con- contradictory 567 N.E.2d at 1214. His impermissible vouching stituted police concerning statements to the his “it squarely addressed and bolstered an- ability identify gunmen placed the had Miller, credibility.” other witness’s credibility question and afforded de- Springer’s A.2d at 872. Because Det. tes- grounds fendant fruitful for cross-examina- timony supported credibility the against tion. Because the state’s case only eyewitness, state’s its could admission depended on credibili- Lassiter jury be construed the as en- opinion that the witness ty, Springer’s credibility. dorsement of the Id. witness’s all identity of the assailants knew the at 873. along probably great weight was accorded Miller, 873; jury. 679 A.2d at see Opinion tends corrobo- Desmarais, also State v. 479 A.2d rate another witness’s or sub- (R.I.1984) influential na- (acknowledging disputed stantiate a fact is admissible in testimony). Accordingly we ture Gough, limited circumstances. State v. improper that the introduction of conclude (R.I.2002) curiam), (per credibility testimony bearing on Williams’s of testimony by admission the investi- prejudicial warranting error reversal officer that gating the marks he observed of the conviction. complainant’s on the wrists were consis- tent the improper with use of handcuffs Conclusion upheld by rejected this Court. We herein, For reasons set forth argument that this evidence constitut- case is re- judgment is vacated bolstering. Although opin- ed the officer’s for Superior manded to the Court a new complainant’s ion corroborated the testi- trial. mony employed that handcuffs had been him, photograph depicting restrain FLANDERS, Justice, dissenting. complainant’s circular marks on the wrists reasoning respectfully I dissent from the was also admitted into evidence. Id. The deciding to vacate provided enough was thus with “facts Court the defen- judgments against of conviction upon opinion which the officer’s based (Lassiter), dant, and to re- Troy Lassiter whether the conclusions drawn assess or, I a new trial. would probative force mand this case for possessed sufficient following rather, the convictions for the grounded speculation in mere affirm were bar, conjecture.” Id. In the case at reasons: (1) and these two individu- between Andrews State- Relevancy Victim’s circumstances Consequently, the Other Shooters Who Were als.5 such ments about The out- they may with the still Car to show that were relevant Defendant. victim, David that the Andrews, of-court statements they as to hurt have wanted (Andrews), supposedly communi- Andrews in the attempted to do apparently had Dale, were girlfriend, cated to his Wraina up grew that Lassiter past. given And Rob- why Hazard and relevant show Lassi- that Roberts was Hazard and with who were erts —the other shooters cousin, helped to evidence also ter’s such the murder oc- car Lassiter when with explain why may have been plan a motive and might have had curred — car, as well people two these other on the date he to shoot Andrews to death have why all of them revealing was murdered. they doing what Williams said been admissibility of evi- about the “Decisions Thus, relevant the evidence was doing. relevancy are left to the grounds dence on testimo- it corroborated Williams’s justice; trial this discretion of the sound explain why the individu- ny helped to decisions on will not disturb those Court shooting at may have been als the car of discretion.” appeal absent an abuse Moreover, if Williams identified Andrews. Pena-Rojas, A.2d State v. correctly, placed Hazard and Roberts curiam) (R.I.2003) (citing v. Bo (per was a in the car with Lassiter —who them (R.I.2000)). telho, More cousin, respectively— lifelong friend decisions, over, we reviewing such “when to corrobo- this evidence also tended then justice that a trial abused will not conclude as identification of Lassiter rate Williams’s long as some his or her discretion as (“the my enemy my friend is also well appear in support the decision grounds enemy”). Botelho, 753 A.2d (citing the record.” Id. 350). event, jurors In I do not believe at merely be- have convicted would Here, sup- grounds” there were “some they him ill of when they thought cause that An- justice’s decision porting the concerning his cocon- heard the were rele- statements drews’s out-of-court their vic- prior bad acts towards spirators’ had that Hazard and Roberts vant to show ap- Indeed, attorney own tim. Lassiter’s kill identi- a motive to Andrews. Williams this evidence thought so little of parently in the being fied Hazard and Roberts possibility of not even weighed that he shooting when the car as Lassiter same * * * (“if it comes out objecting to to his Andrews’s statements occurred. Also, the trial [object]”). I maybe won’t they were relevant because girlfriend at the close of jury justice instructed two individu- explain why these tended only person that “[t]he all the evidence shooting car have been in the might als Troy is trial before concluded, who is on As the trial Andrews. Lassiter,” one and that is true, “[h]e they pro- then those statements * * * [and] in this case a defendant blood” prior indication of “bad vided some An- the fact that have resented girlfriend’s testi- Hazard majority that the 5. The states person who hanging with the actually out drews mony "Hazard was not indicated that Hazard’s attempted mother of shooting to run the had shooting but was in fact at Andrews * * * then witnessed road and who suggesting that child off the companion Andrews’s individual, attempts to murder that Hazard’s at Andrews.” was not aimed Hazard’s animus to kill An- thereby giving Hazard a motive previous shoot- interpretation of the But this drews. ing possibility incident overlooks HU Characterizing completely as “not guilt you whose or innocence are con- someone way bolstering cerned with.” scarcely honest” is credibility when he or she later her Accordingly, the admission chal- subject oath the same testifies under evidence, lenged if it had even constituted matter. irrelevant, error because it was was not unfairly prejudicial to Lassiter and did not Second, any- Det. never said constitute reversible error. Such decisions telling thing about whether Williams appeal should not be overturned on unless his second state- gave the truth when he grounds support appear no the decision to the in which he named ment Pena-Rojas, record. gunmen. Although Lassiter as one my and for judgment, the reasons thought that he Springer’s testimony stated, previously are there indeed “some completely “not honest” also Williams was grounds” support the record to the ad- that, during indicated their initial conver- mission of this evidence. sation, detective believed that Williams were,

(2) gunmen this evidence knew who Allowing Det. Springer Police imply that state- did not Williams’s later Testify Eyewitness, gunmen ment that Lassiter was one Completely Was “Not Honest” when He was truthful. If Williams was “not com- First with the Spoke Police Did Not Bol- spoke to Det. Credibility. pletely ster I do not honest” when he first also justice Springer, why jury believe that the trial committed then would the believe necessarily telling in allowing Springer reversible error Det. that Williams was the testify opinion, identify to that in his was purported truth when he later to completely “not initially honest” when he gunmen? Lassiter as one of the Even told the detective that all he see could was that though Springer Det. believed a in shooters, “black face” the shooters’ car. It is identify such Williams could the difficult accept proposition for me to the imply a statement does not that Williams’s that when a witness that he testifies be- police, later statement to the or his testi- person completely lieves that a was “not mony at trial in which he identified who him, honest” with he thereby bolstering were, worthy the assailants was in fact person’s that credibility when the individu- all, could have belief. After Williams al in question later testifies at trial to a were, known full the shooters well who contrary version the same events. deliberately yet again just lied as he had — spoke Spring- done he first to Det. when

I that agree also do not when Det. by falsely identifying people the he that, Springer judgment, testified in his er— event, police. any to the In the named completely Williams was “not honest” point Springer crucial is that Det. never initially when Williams told him that he about Williams was anything said whether shooters, identify was unable to the this telling fingered the truth when he later implied being that testimony Williams was of the shooters. Lassiter as one changed story truthful when Williams his as one of the and later named Lassiter Third, Springer’s tes- even without Det. gunmen. jury have that timony, the would heard provided inconsistent state- noted, had First, previously it does not that police, denying at first ments to the usually credibility one’s enhance were, and then who the shooters out that he or he knew eyes by pointing of others identifying subject contradicting later himself untruthful about the same she was police the fact that previous them. Given matter on one or more occasions. 1112 murder, Miller, (R.I.1996),

charged Lassiter with and the and State Haslam, (R.I.1996), lack of 663 A.2d 902 I do relative evidence to corroborate the not Springer’s testimony believe that Det. eyewitness later version ac- Williams’s count, completely Williams was “not honest” jury would have known that the credibility served to enhance Williams’s chose to police believe later Williams’s when later identified Lassiter as the them, statement rather than first Miller, A.2d at shooter. Thus, one. that Det. Springer, notion that allowing police Court held a officer to every police and for matter other prosecution a testify that failure witness’s case, on this thought officer important to mention information was not telling initially was the truth when he (because uncommon such witnesses often identify that he said could not the shooters fail appreciate importance hardly earthshaking jury, news they possess) directly information bol- especially given police involvement credibility stered of that witness’s later obtaining the indictment of defen- these testimony missing filled infor- reasons, dants. For even if it these here, mation. But I do not believe that a error for Det. allow officer’s that a witness opinion to state his about completely when “not honest” he first being completely “not honest” spoke witness bolstered that wit- they first I spoke, when do not believe contradictory ness’s later version of the amounted reversible error because the Likewise, Webber, same events. known, event, jury would have permitted a A.2d at witness was police did not believe Williams’s initial testify that certain evidence the heard Springer. statement to defense’s was more reliable and credible than other request limiting failure to instruction or evidence. This is the kind of direct bol- jus- to move for when the trial mistrial stering of a witness’s that also tice allowed this to be admitted Haslam, A.2d present 663 suggests also it did this view simply present was not in this case. unduly prejudicial. evidence as See State short, In I do not that Det. Spring- believe Brown, (R.I.1998). v. testimony “squarely er’s addressed Fourth, the was not offered another credibility,” bolstered witness’s the credibility bolster of Williams’s identi- Miller, A.2d at when testified fication of as one of the shooters completely that Williams was “not honest” proof Springer’s but as state spoke. they contrary, when first On why pursue mind to show he intended to whatsoever, it it any had effect would have questioning doing farther of Williams. In underscored the fact that so, the state intended to counter the antici- quite capable police to the when he lying police defense pated that the had coerced event, it to do so. In did not wanted sug- into changing story by speak credibility to or bolster police just good that this was work gesting Williams’s identification of Lassiter as one up following with a witness who of the shooters. get at first to involved in identi- reluctant Unfortunately, a grim this case is re- and, therefore, initially fying the shooters that, rapidly, all too minder “bolster- lied to the about whether he could ing” has the third rail of doctrine become identify them. if a prosecu- Rhode Island criminal law: Finally, unlike the situations in v. tion so much as touches on what State witness Webber, (R.I.1998), v. he thinks another witness’s A.2d 738 or she about

1H3 credibility, statements or out-of-court error, requiring fatal

becomes a reversible vacating of a new conviction my judgment, proof

trial. the best applica- gone doctrine has too far is its case, in which

tion to the facts of this one characterizing of another witness’s out- completely hon-

of-court statement as “not that witness’s

est” is deemed bolster

credibility eyes when

witness later testifies to a different version

at trial. reasons, I affirm the

For these would

convictions. PARTNERS, L.P., et.

CERBERUS al.

v. HANNAH, LLP, &

GADSBY Schatz Schatz,

& Ribicoff & Kotkin O'Melveny

Adam C. Harris and Myers,

& LLP. 2002-196-Appeal.

No.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Dec.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Lassiter

Court Name: Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date Published: Dec 18, 2003

Citation: 836 A.2d 1096

Docket Number: 99-434-C.A.

Court Abbreviation: R.I.