State v. Richard BaribaultState v. Richard Baribault
NOTICE: This оpinion 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 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.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, and Robinson, JJ.
Justice Flaherty, for the Court. The defendant, Richard Baribault, appeals from his conviction following a jury trial in Kent County Superior Court for second-degree murder, receiving stolen goods, conspiracy, operating a vehicle on a suspended license, and carrying a knife greater than three inches in length. For those offenses, the defendant wаs sentenced to life imprisonment at the Adult Correctional Institutions for the murder, a consecutive ten-year sentence for the conspiracy, and suspended one-year sentences for each of the three remaining convictions, with probation.
On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the trial justice erred by failing to suppress the fruits of a police interrogation, urging that the interrogation violated
I
Facts and Travel
This case involves the brutal beating and murder of Fernando Silva, a seventy-year-old man who was found dead aboard his sailboat. Following an investigation by the Warwick police, defendant was arrested and, on January 27, 2016, a Kent County grand jury indicted defendant for the murder, in violation of
A
The Investigation and Arrest
On August 4, 2015, while he was on routine patrol, the City of Warwick‘s Chief Harbormaster, Jeffrey Baris, came upon a twenty-six-foot sailboat that was “dragging the anchor” at the northern end of Warwick Cove. The older, yellow-hulled sailboat was named “Star Capella.” Mr. Baris boarded the Star Capella. After taking notice of its disheveled state, and, believing that nobody was aboard, Mr. Baris towed the Star Capella and then secured it to a vacant mooring in the south end of the cove.
Eleven days later, on August 15, Mr. Baris attempted to make a visual check of the Star Capella to ensure that it remained properly moored. Mr. Baris became aware of a foul odor as he approached the vessel. By the time he boarded the boat, he found the odor to be overpowering. While aboard, Mr. Baris observed significant insect activity. Investigating, he used a bore, which he described as a pole with a hook at one end, to lift objects inside the cabin. After using the bore to displace a piece of plywood, a foam mattress, and a blanket, Mr. Baris discovered what he believed to be human feet, covered by flies and maggots and in an advanced stage of decomposition. Mr. Baris immediately contacted law enforcement.
The Warwick Police Department quickly determined that the body that had been found aboard the Star Capella was that of Fernando Silva, who was known in the community as “Captain Freddy.” Captain Freddy owned and lived on the Star Capella. The police received a tip that the vessel previously had been docked at the Warwick Cove Marina but, after speaking with the owner of that marina, investigators learned that the sailboat actually had been docked at a private dock that had been rented by Stephen Emerson, a local quahogger.
The police spoke with Mr. Emerson on August 18, 2015. Mr. Emerson, who lived at property abutting the dock, told police that he had observed two white men attempting to start the Star Capella‘s engine. He also led the officers to Donald “Ducky” Waterman in an effort to assist in identifying the two men. The next day, while trying to locate Ducky, police instead encountered his brother, Charles “Chucky” Waterman. Chucky told police that, a couple of weeks prior, Troy Gunderway had tried to assist Captain Freddy in acquiring a new engine for his boat. Chucky led police to Ducky and, in turn, to Mr. Gunderway, who was living sometimes in a tent in Ducky‘s backyard and sometimes at the home of Ducky‘s father. Mr. Gunderway admitted to police that he had
The police determined where defendant lived after speaking with Mr. Gunderway. The same day, the police traveled to that location in search of a pickup truck that matched the description given by Mr. Gunderway. The police discovered a maroon pickup truck outside defendant‘s residence and “ran” the license plate affixed to the vehicle. After doing so, the officers learned that the license plate had been reported stolen. The police also conducted a “driving abstract” on defendant and learned that his driver‘s license had been suspended. After staking out that location for several hours, the police observed defendant leaving the residence. At that time, they identified him through photographic records of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The police arrested defendant after they observed him entering and operating the truck. The defendant was charged with three misdemeanors at that time: Possession of stolen license plates, driving on a suspended license, and possessing a knife greater than three inches in length, which was discovered on his person during the course of a search incident to his arrest.1 After his arrest, and before he was arraigned the following afternoon, defendant was held in custody and was interrogated by the police on three separate occasions. While he was in police custody, defendant made a number of contradictory and incriminating statements, which ultimately led to his being charged with the murder of Captain Freddy.
B
The Trial
The defendant stood trial by jury in Kent County Superior Court, which commenced on June 14, 2017. The trial continued over a two-week period and resulted in voluminous testimony and evidence. The following is a summation of the testimony and evidence produced during defendant‘s trial that is relevant to this appeal.
1
Testimony of Stephen Emerson
Mr. Emerson testified that, on July 31, 2015, he discovered that the Star Capella was docked at the private dock at the end of his property, a dock of which Mr. Emerson claimed to be “in charge[.]” Mr. Emerson confronted Captain Freddy, who explained that he was docked in that spot with the permission of Mr. Emerson‘s landlord, through his friend, Donald Watеrman. Mr. Emerson did not work the following morning. He testified, however, that, accustomed to his typical quahogging schedule, he was awake early in the morning, “about sun up[,]” when he noticed two individuals crossing through his yard carrying a cooler and gasoline container. Mr. Emerson identified one of those men as defendant.
Mr. Emerson further testified that he confronted the two individuals that morning about cutting through his yard. Both appeared nervous, he recounted, and one responded, “We are moving Freddy‘s boat up to Conimicut. He‘s getting high with a woman and he asked us to move the boat.” Mr. Emerson said that he saw the individuals go to the boat, begin moving things around, and attempt to start the engine. After about an hour, he testified, Mr. Emerson went down to the boat and offered his assistance to the individuals. Shortly thereaftеr, the two individuals left so that they could return with another engine.
Mr. Emerson testified that, at some point, he went to Boston with his girlfriend. When he returned on August 4, 2015, he noticed that the vessel was no longer at the dock.
2
Testimony of Donald “Ducky” Waterman2
Ducky Waterman, a commerciаl shell-fisherman, testified that he first met Captain Freddy in the summer of 2015. At that time, Captain Freddy had asked Ducky for a ride because his bicycle had been stolen. The witness said that he and
Captain Freddy became acquainted and that, from that point on, Captain Freddy would call on Ducky from time to time when he was in need of transportation. Ducky testified that he also helped Captain Freddy in securing dock space for his sailboat by contacting Mr. Emerson‘s landlord on Captain Freddy‘s behalf.
Ducky further testified that Captain Freddy was “hooked on Keno,” a lottery game. According to Ducky, Captain Freddy was “lucky[,]” “kept hitting[,]” and “was always winning.” Ducky also recounted that Captain Freddy did not keep his good fortune to himself. He testified that Captain Freddy would hand out money to peoрle who were standing outside the convenience stores whenever Captain Freddy would “hit.” Ducky recounted that, in late July 2015, Captain Freddy informed him that, in Portsmouth, “he won $800 on one [ticket] and a couple of hundred on another. He hit like three times in one day.” Ducky recalled that, around that time, Captain Freddy “hit” at another convenience store in Warwick, and Ducky estimated that Captain Freddy won a couple of thousand dollars on that occasion. Around that time, according to Ducky, Captain Freddy “was hitting three or four times a day.”
Ducky proceeded to describe Mr. Gunderway‘s relationship with Captain Freddy. Ducky recounted how he, from time to time, drove Mr. Gunderway around when Mr. Gunderway needed a ride. On a couple of occasions, Ducky and Mr. Gunderway drove to the convenience store when Captain Freddy was playing Keno. Ducky testified that Mr. Gunderway knew that Captain Freddy had been successful at playing Keno, and he told Ducky at some point that Captain Freddy “was a lucky guy.” Ducky also said that, on another occasion, he tried to assist Captain Freddy find a more powerful engine for his boat through an acquaintance of Mr. Gunderway, and the three men had driven together to look at an engine.
3
Testimony of Troy Gunderway
Mr. Gunderway‘s testimony was especially damning to defendant. He testified that he had known defendant for several years, that he had worked with him, and
Mr. Gunderway testified that, on the evening of July 31, 2015, defendant transported him to a meeting with Mr. Gunderway‘s ex-girlfriend so that he could make a child-support payment. The two men then went to the “Zebra strip joint[.]” The witness said that the pair hung around the strip club for a while, purchased some crack cocaine, and then traveled to the home of defendant‘s friend. He said that they consumed the crack cocaine en route. Mr. Gunderway testified that he and defendant drank alcohol at the home of defendant‘s friend until they exhausted their supply of liquor. They then decided to head to Mr. Gunderway‘s residence to see if there was more alcohol there. Mr. Gunderway recounted that he and defendant encountered Ducky after they arrived at Mr. Gunderway‘s residence. Mr. Gunderway testified that Ducky was “bragging” about Captain Freddy‘s winnings when Ducky jokingly said, “Let‘s roll him[,]” which Mr. Gunderway undеrstood to mean “rob him.” Mr. Gunderway said that he and defendant left shortly thereafter in defendant‘s truck, “looking for money to go hang out some more[.]” He said that defendant then suggested that they attempt to “borrow” money from Captain Freddy, and with that they drove to Captain Freddy‘s sailboat.
Mr. Gunderway testified that he boarded the boat, walked down the stairs into the cabin, and called out Captain Freddy‘s name, but realized that he was sleeping. Mr. Gunderway said that he was sitting at a table in the boat, deciding what to do next, when defendant arrived. According to Mr. Gunderway, he informed defendant that Captain Freddy was sleeping, to which defendant responded, “Well, I have no money. I need money and f**k it. Let‘s rob this dude.”
Mr. Gunderway testified that defendant then proceeded down the stairs and awakened Captain Freddy. He said that Captain Freddy started screaming when defendant, according to Mr. Gunderway, “just went and blasted him like five times in the face * * * [f]ull punches to the face. Blood splurted on the walls, the curtains.” Mr. Gunderway admitted to holding Captain Freddy down while defendant threatened Captain Freddy with a knife, stomped on his legs, and demanded money. Eventually, Mr. Gunderway recounted, the two left the boat, leaving Captain Freddy still on the floor and “breathing real heavy[.]”
Mr. Gunderway testified that he and defendant returned to the boat the next morning because Mr. Gunderway had lost his cell phone and thought that he might have left it in the boat. He recalled that, upon arriving at the boat, he called out to Captain Freddy, but there was no response. The witness then said that he went down into the cabin and kicked Captain Freddy‘s foot. But again, there was no response. Mr. Gunderway testified that he returned to defendant‘s truck and informed defendant that Captain Freddy was dead. It was at that point, he recounted, that the two agreed that they would cover up the crime scene.
Mr. Gunderway testified that, consistent with Mr. Emerson‘s testimony, he had returned to the boat on several occasions that day, all in a futile attempt to start the engine. According to Mr. Gunderway, the plan hatched by him and defendant was to dispose of the body before it began to decompose and give off the odor of decaying flesh. Mr. Gunderway recalled that the pair planned to clean the boat, take Captain Freddy‘s body “out towards the sea[,]” and “throw the body over board
He testified that eventually, on August 4, 2015, he managed to start the Star Capella‘s engine. Mr. Gunderway said that he operated the boat out into the bay, when he became aware of the presence of the harbormaster, and so he decided to turn the other way. Mr. Gunderway testified that, after changing course, he motored the boat to “[t]he end of the cove[,]” threw out the anchor, and rowed on the Star Capella‘s dinghy to shore, where defendant picked him up.3
4
Other Evidence Introduced at Trial
Other evidence admitted during the trial painted a vivid picture not only of defendant‘s involvement in the killing of Captain Freddy but also of his state of mind between the time of the killing and his eventual arrest.
Video surveillance of the Warwick Cove Marina, along with Google location history, revealed that defendant‘s truck and cell phone were at the marina from approximately 3:27 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. on August 1, 2015.4 Other evidence included
Google voice searches made from defendant‘s cell phone, in defendant‘s own voice, which were played to the jury and identified by Mr. Gunderway. Those searches involved inquiries that included: “Does bleach kill everything including skin cells?“; “Boat motor mechanic in Warwick, Rhode Island“; “What towns in Rhode Island have garbage days—garbage pickup on Friday morning?“; and “Where would Warwick harbormaster take a towed boat?”
C
The Verdict and Sentencing
The defendant was found guilty by a jury on all five counts with which he was charged. He was sentenced to life imprisonment at the ACI for the murder of Captain Freddy; a consecutive ten-year sentence for the conspiracy; and suspended one-year sentences for each of the three misdemeanors, with probation, two being concurrent to the other sentence and one consecutive.
Additional facts are set forth infra as necessary to discuss the issues before the Court on appeal.
II
Issues on Appeal
Before this Court, defendant offers an array of arguments which, he contends, should cause his convictions to be vacated. First, he asserts that the trial justice erred by failing to suppress the fruits of his third interrogation by the Warwick Police Department,
III
Discussion
A
The Interrogations5
1
Facts
The defendant argues that the trial justice erred by failing to suppress the fruits of his third interrogation by the police because the delay between his arrest and presentment to a judicial officer violated
The defendant was arrested on misdemeanor charges on August 19, 2015, at about 3 p.m. and he was “booked” at the police station at about 4:26 p.m. His first interrogation began around 5:58 p.m., and the questioning continued for about four hours. Although defendant had been arrested on three misdemeanor offenses, and even though he was examined about the stolen plates in the interrogation room, there is no question that defendant had captured the police‘s interest with respect to the killing of Captain Freddy and that, according to police, he “became more on [their]
radar” аnd “a suspect slash witness” when they discovered what appeared to be blood on the knife that had been seized from defendant‘s person at the time he was arrested. Accordingly, the conversation between the police and defendant soon turned to the circumstances surrounding Captain Freddy‘s death.
At some point during defendant‘s first interrogation, Mr. Gunderway had voluntarily reported to the police station and spoke with the police. From time to time, one of defendant‘s interrogators would leave defendant in the interrogation room and speak with Mr. Gunderway. After speaking to the police for about sixty minutes, Mr. Gunderway completely implicated himself in Captain Freddy‘s death, relating a story similar to his later testimony, set out supra, thereby also implicating defendant. This afforded the police the opportunity to contemporaneously confront defendant with any discrepancies between his and Mr. Gunderway‘s versions of what had transpired on the Star Capella on July 31, 2015, and August 1, 2015. The defendant, after initially denying any involvement with Mr. Gunderway
The defendant‘s first interrogation concluded around 10 p.m., and his second interrogation began a few hours later, around 1:20 a.m. on August 20, 2015, the next day. Shortly after his second interrogation began, the police informed defendant that they had spoken with Mr. Gunderway and that, “basically, in a nutshell, you guys were looking for money and you both killed the guy.”6 The defendant, confronted with both the fact of Mr. Gunderway‘s cooperation and the officers’ suggestion that surveillance cameras would reveal if defendant did, in fact, leave his vehicle that night, began to amend his version of events. The defendant conceded, “All right. I went down—listen. I didn‘t go on the boat. I went down on the dock.” He contended that he went on the dock as a lookout for Mr. Gunderway. However, aside from this revelation, defendant continued to deny the officers’ factual suggеstions for the duration of the interrogation, which lasted for about an hour. The police terminated the interrogation after defendant said that he was tired.
Later that morning, despite the fact that arrangements had been made to bring defendant to the courthouse at 9 a.m. to be arraigned on the three misdemeanor charges, defendant continued to be held at the police station. There, police elected to interrogate defendant for a third time, beginning at 12:25 p.m.
The police asked defendant at the start of the third interrogation, “Anything come to your head last night?” The defendant responded, “Yeah, a lot. * * * About the boat. * * * I remember a lot now, because I did a lot, a lot of f**king thinking.” The video recording reveals that defendant then began to relаte his version of events, with little interruption by the police. This third time, however, defendant admitted to going onto the boat, but he claimed that it was Mr. Gunderway who sought to, and did, rob Captain Freddy, and that defendant “grabbed” Mr. Gunderway in an effort to stop him, but Mr. Gunderway “kicked [him] in the n**s or almost in the n**s.” The defendant continued to “remember” certain factual details that he had not recollected the night before, such as the detail that Mr. Gunderway carried a cooler to the Star Capella when they returned to the boat a few hours after their fatal encounter with Captain Freddy. An investigating officer then informed defendant that “[t]he only discrepancy between [his and Mr. Gunderway‘s] stories at this point, pretty much is who the aggressor was.” The defendant then terminated the interrogation, and he was аrraigned in the District Court on the three misdemeanor charges later that afternoon.
It is clear from the recorded interrogation that, in each of the three interrogations, defendant spoke to the police of his own volition about the death of Captain Freddy. He waived his Miranda rights in writing before each interrogation; and during the first interrogation he provided the
search his cell phone, his truck, and his apartment.7 The defendant was given a bathroom break during the first interrogation, a cigarette break after the start of the second interrogation, and prescription medication during the third interrogation; and he was provided with food and water on all three occasions. The defendant also slept after the second interrogation. The police described defendant‘s demeanor as “very сooperative” during the interrogations and said that “[h]e appeared pretty calm, friendly, [and] willing to talk.” Moreover, defendant repeatedly told the police during the interrogations that he wanted to talk with them and that he was “trying to help [them] out.”
Before trial, defendant moved in the Superior Court to suppress each of his three interrogations and, consequently, the fruits of those interrogations. In his motion, he asserted that the Warwick police failed to present him to a judicial officer without unnecessary delay, in violation of
In reaching his decision, the trial justice found that there was no “causative effect” resulting from any delay between defendant‘s arrest and any statement or consent given by defendant. On appeal, defendant contests only the trial justice‘s conclusions with respect to the third interrogation.
2
Standard of Review
“This Court‘s review of a trial justice‘s ruling with respect to a motion to suppress a statement which a defendant has alleged was made involuntarily requires ‘a two-step analysis.‘” State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158, 1179 (R.I. 2011) (quoting State v. Taoussi, 973 A.2d 1142, 1146 (R.I. 2009)). “In the first step, we review the trial justice‘s findings of historical fact relative to the issue of the voluntariness of the confession.” Id. “We accord deference to the trial justice‘s findings of historiсal fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. “If we conclude that the trial justice‘s findings of historical fact were not clearly erroneous, we proceed to the second step of our analysis. At the second step, we ‘apply those historical facts and review de novo the trial justice‘s determination of the voluntariness of the statement.‘” Id. (quoting State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822, 836 (R.I. 2008)).
3
Analysis
“In interpreting
Accordingly, “our well-settled case law with respect to
In this case, where the delay in presenting defendant to a judicial officer is troubling, we will assume without deciding that there was not strict compliance with the requirements of
There can be no question that the third interrogation was fruitful for the police because defendant made more inculpatory statements in that interrogation than he had in the two preceding interrogations. However, we cannot say that any statements made by defendant were caused by the delay. The causation element of our
In King, this Court held that the inculpatory statements made by the defendant were not caused by any delay in presentment because the defendant was eager to speak with the police and willingly relayed his story “to persuade the police as to the veracity of his version of the events, while simultaneously attempting to shift blame away from himself.” King, 996 A.2d at 621, 623; see id. at 622 (the defendant was on “a mission to tell * * * his side of the story“). In our opinion, that is essentially what happened in this case. Having had the benefit of reviewing the video recording, we come to the inescapаble conclusion that defendant‘s active participation in the third interrogation was an effort to build his own credibility with the police while shifting any criminal liability to Mr. Gunderway.
The third interrogation began with defendant recounting, on his own initiative, a more complete story after indicating that he had done a lot of thinking since the prior interrogation and that he “remember[ed]
The defendant places great emphasis on the federal counterpart to
Accordingly, we hold that the trial justice did not err in denying defendant‘s motion to suppress the fruits of his third interrogation.
B
Inculpatory Statements Captured by Interrogation Room Recording
The defendant next argues that the trial justice erred by declining to redact certain prejudicial statements he made while he was alone in the interrogation room.
1
Facts
Although defendant implicated himself in the death of Captain Freddy only minimally during the first interrogation, hе did make some statements that raised eyebrows. The defendant maintained throughout the first interrogation that he believed that the Star Capella was owned by Ducky, and he said that Mr. Gunderway had to move the boat for Ducky because the dock rental was expiring. At one point, the detectives asked defendant if Mr. Gunderway had contacted him between the time the boat had been moved and the time of defendant‘s arrest. Specifically, the police asked defendant if Mr. Gunderway mentioned anything about a T-shirt that was found wrapped around Captain Freddy‘s feet and ankles when the decedent‘s body was discovered.10 The defendant responded,
At trial, defendant was heard on his motion to redact that statement before the video recordings of his interrogations were played to the jury.11 The defendant argued that the statement should be excluded under
2
Standard of Review
“In reviewing the admission or exclusion of evidence, it is well settled that the admissibility of evidеnce is within the sound discretion of the trial justice, and this Court will not interfere with the trial justice‘s decision unless a clear abuse of discretion is apparent.” State v. Cavanaugh, 158 A.3d 268, 273 (R.I. 2017) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Peltier, 116 A.3d 150, 153 (R.I. 2015)). “[O]nly rarely—and in extraordinarily compelling circumstances—will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a trial court‘s on-the-spot judgment concerning the * * * weighing of probative value and unfair effect.” State v. Patel, 949 A.2d 401, 413 (R.I. 2008) (brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada, 877 F.2d 153, 155-56 (1st Cir. 1989)).
3
Analysis
After reviewing the record, we discern no error on the part of the trial justice. There can be no question that defendant‘s statement, “I‘m f**ked. * * * [G]oing to jail for the rest of my life,” is probative of defendant‘s awareness of the compromised position in which he found himself. When the first interrogation is considered as a whole, the contested statement was made after he had agreed to allow the police to search his phone, truck, and apartment,
C
Other Issues
The defendant raises two additional arguments before this Court on appeal: (1) his detention by the Warwick Police Department was extensive and he was denied medication during the detention in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights and (2) the trial justice abused his discretion by failing to suppress a witness‘s out-of-court identification. It is apparent from the record, however, that neither of those issues was raised prior to or during the defendant‘s trial. Pursuant to our well-settled raise-or-waive rule, “no party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict[.]” State v. Hunt, 137 A.3d 689, 693 (R.I. 2016) (brackets omitted) (quoting
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The record shall be returned to the Superior Court.13
Justice Flaherty participated in the decision and authored this opinion prior to his retirement.
Justice Lynch Prata and Justice Long did not participate.