Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Leo Belanger’s convictions for three counts of second-degree child molestation and the finding that he violated probation on a prior receiving-stolen-goods conviction. The court rejected challenges concerning the offense dates, the prosecutor’s closing argument, medical testimony, the admissibility of Belanger’s statement, and the probation-violation finding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying judgments of acquittal and refusing to instruct the jury that the state had to prove the offenses occurred within the dates stated in the indictment.
- Whether the prosecutor's closing argument improperly commented on Belanger's failure to testify and required a mistrial or cautionary instruction.
- Whether the trial court improperly admitted a medical witness's testimony concerning observations recorded by an associated physician.
- Whether testimony that Belanger admitted drug use when he molested the victim and said it would not happen again was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Belanger violated probation.
Holdings
- The date of an offense is not an essential element of the crime and is not an evidentiary fact that the state must prove precisely. Because the evidence, viewed favorably to the state, permitted the children to have been in Rhode Island during visits within the charged periods, the denial of the motions for judgments of acquittal and the requested jury instruction was proper.
- The prosecutor's ambiguous closing argument did not require a mistrial, and the trial justice's explicit instruction that Belanger had an absolute constitutional right to remain silent and that the jury could draw no inference from his silence adequately remedied any potential prejudice.
- Admission of the medical witness's testimony concerning observations recorded by an associated physician was not error because the documentation fell within the business-records exception and was the type of data ordinarily relied upon by the expert in evaluating the patient.
- The victim's testimony that Belanger admitted using drugs when he molested her and said it would not happen again was relevant and admissible because the statement was probative of consciousness of guilt.
- The evidence was more than sufficient to establish the probation violation under the lesser reasonable-satisfaction standard.
Key quotations
“When deciding a motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial justice “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, without weighing the evidence or assessing the credibility of the witnesses and draw all reasonable inferences that are consistent with guilt.”” (at 63)
“the defendant had an absolute constitutional right to sit back and remain silent * * * [and] Mr. Belanger has chosen to exercise that constitutional right. * * * You may not even consider that fact in the course of your deliberations. * * * [Y]ou can draw no inference against him because he exercised his constitutional right.” (at 64)
“We conclude that defendant’s statement to Erika, in which he seeks to justify his criminal behavior, is probative of defendant’s consciousness of guilt and is, therefore, relevant and admissible testimony.” (at 65)
Factual background
Belanger was accused of molesting his two nieces during periods alleged in the indictment. Although the children lived in North Carolina during portions of the charged periods, the evidence permitted the jury to infer that they returned to Rhode Island for visits and that Belanger had access to them during those visits. At trial, medical evidence concerning one victim's hymen and testimony that Belanger admitted he had been using drugs when he molested the younger victim were admitted. Belanger was convicted of three counts and was also found to have violated a previously imposed suspended sentence.
Procedural history
Belanger was indicted on five counts of child molestation. The Superior Court denied his motions for judgments of acquittal, permitted the challenged evidence and argument, instructed the jury regarding his constitutional right not to testify, convicted him on three counts, acquitted him on two counts, and found him in violation of a previously imposed suspended sentence. The Supreme Court denied and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment.
Remand instructions
The papers in the case were remanded to the Superior Court; no further substantive proceedings were directed.