Summary
This Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion addresses a defendant's appeal following convictions for sexual assault and child molestation. The court examines whether the indictment and bill of particulars were duplicitous, finding that seven counts improperly charged multiple acts under single headings, violating the defendant's right to adequate notice and a unanimous jury verdict. Consequently, the court affirms two convictions based on specifically charged single acts and vacates the remaining seven, allowing the state to file an amended bill of particulars. The court also rejects claims regarding errors in jury instructions on reasonable doubt and corroboration.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the indictment and bill of particulars were duplicitous, thereby depriving the defendant of adequate notice and due process.
- Whether the trial court's jury instructions—including the reasonable doubt instruction, the force and coercion instruction, and the failure to give a unanimity instruction—were erroneous.
Holdings
- The court affirmed the convictions on counts 5 and 8, which were not duplicitous, and vacated the convictions on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 because the indictment and bill of particulars failed to give the defendant adequate notice of the specific offenses charged.
- The court held that the trial court's reasonable doubt instruction, when read in its entirety, correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt and was not erroneous.
- The court found the trial court's instruction on force and coercion erroneous because it effectively removed the State's burden to prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The omission of a unanimity instruction did not prejudice the convictions on counts 5 and 8 because the evidence showed a single act for each count.
Key quotations
“"The allegation in the complaint is fatally defective. It clearly charges the first voting to have been willful and fraudulent, and then alleges the second voting also to be illegal. It thus charges two offenses in one count; and is bad for duplicity."”
“"If after you have examined all of the evidence, your mind is left with a firm conviction of the truth of the State's charges, then you must return a verdict of guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty, then you must give the benefit to the defendant."”
Factual background
Glenn A. Saluter was indicted on nine counts of sexual assault and child molestation involving a girl, Amy, who was under thirteen. The indictment alleged multiple acts in most counts, with only counts 5 and 8 alleging a single act. The trial evidence consisted primarily of Amy's testimony; no medical evidence was offered. The jury convicted Saluter on all nine counts.
Procedural history
The defendant was tried in the Superior Court, convicted on nine counts of sexual assault/child molestation, and sentenced. He moved to dismiss the indictment for duplicity and challenged jury instructions; the trial court denied the motions and affirmed the convictions. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Remand instructions
An amended bill of particulars may be filed, setting forth a single offense for each count of the indictment.