Summary
This Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion reviews multiple assignments of error raised by defendants convicted of armed robbery and related offenses. The court addresses issues including the denial of a continuance for new counsel, the refusal to declare a police detective a hostile witness, sufficiency of evidence for assault charges, double jeopardy concerns regarding concurrent convictions, and various trial management decisions such as witness sequestration and joint trial severance. Ultimately, the court affirms most of the trial court's rulings while finding a double jeopardy violation that requires dismissing one of the overlapping counts.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial justice abused discretion in denying a continuance for counsel of the defendant's choice.
- Whether the trial justice erred in refusing to declare a detective a hostile witness.
- Whether the crime‑of‑violence‑while‑armed count violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- Whether the trial justice erred in refusing to dismiss the assault‑with‑dangerous‑weapon count.
- Whether the trial justice abused discretion in denying a motion to sequester witnesses.
- Whether the jury instruction on reasonable doubt was erroneous.
- Whether the trial justice abused discretion in denying a motion to sever the joint trial.
- Whether the trial justice erred in allowing expert testimony without a proper foundation.
- Whether the trial justice erred in commenting on the defendants' relative heights.
- Whether the trial justice erred in denying a motion to pass (declare a mistrial).
Holdings
- The trial justice properly exercised discretion in denying the motion for a continuance.
- The trial justice did not abuse discretion in refusing to declare Detective Collins a hostile witness.
- The crime‑of‑violence‑while‑armed count does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and must be affirmed.
- The trial justice correctly denied the motion to dismiss count 5; sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.
- The trial justice did not abuse discretion in denying the motion to sequester witnesses.
- The jury instruction was proper because it reflected the law as it existed at the time of trial.
- The trial justice properly denied the motion to sever; severance is discretionary and no prejudice was shown.
- The trial justice properly denied the motion to strike; the expert was qualified and the motion was untimely.
- The trial justice's statement on the defendants' heights was discretionary and did not constitute error.
- The trial justice properly denied the motion to pass; no reasonable likelihood of prejudice was shown.
Key quotations
“The general rule is that the question of a continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial justice.” (662)
“Under Rhode Island law, counsel may impeach his own witness in two situations: when he is surprised by the witness's testimony or when the interests of justice so require.” (664)
“The reliance on the wording of the indictment by the state and the trial justice is misplaced. The facts of this case show that two crimes of violence – robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon – were committed at the same time as part of the same criminal transaction.” (667)
Factual background
On October 25, 1979, two masked men robbed Cerel's Jewelry Store in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, firing shots but causing no injuries. The suspects fled in a vehicle, were pursued by police, and were subsequently arrested after a chase that ended in a parking lot.
Procedural history
The defendants were convicted in the Superior Court of Rhode Island of robbery, multiple assaults with a dangerous weapon, and a crime of violence while armed. They sought various post‑trial reliefs, which were denied, and appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.