State v. Werner

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Keith A. Werner's convictions for robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and larceny. The court upheld the exclusion of expert eyewitness-identification testimony and polygraph evidence, rejected challenges concerning preservation of a surveillance videotape, and addressed other appellate claims arising from the trial and sentencing.

Holdings

1. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion by denying defendant's request for funds and refusing to permit expert testimony concerning the potential unreliability of eyewitness identification.
2. Rhode Island's per se rule excluding polygraph evidence remains valid, and its application did not violate defendant's due process or Sixth Amendment rights.
3. The destruction of the original bank surveillance videotape did not violate defendant's due process rights or require dismissal because defendant failed to show apparent exculpatory value, constitutional materiality, or bad faith by the police.
4. The trial justice did not commit reversible error by allowing the state to conduct a twenty-second timing demonstration during closing argument; alternatively, the cautionary instruction cured any possible prejudice.
5. The trial justice erred by applying habitual offender status because the state failed to provide the notice required by R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-19-21(b); the additional sentence and related parole restriction therefore must be vacated.
6. Defendant's challenge under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act was barred by collateral estoppel because the same issues had already been resolved against him in his prior appeals.
7. The evidence was sufficient to support the over-$500 element of the automobile-larceny conviction.
8. Defendant's right to present a defense was not violated because the trial justice did not prevent him from obtaining independent testing of the hair samples or presenting his own expert.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial justice abused his discretion by denying defendant funds and permission to present expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification and by declining to hold a preliminary evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether polygraph evidence should be admissible under Daubert and whether its exclusion violated defendant's due process or Sixth Amendment rights.
3. Whether destruction of the original bank surveillance videotape violated defendant's due process rights or impaired his ability to impeach an eyewitness.
4. Whether the prosecutor's twenty-second timing demonstration during closing argument required reversal or a mistrial.
5. Whether the trial justice improperly applied habitual offender status and enhanced defendant's sentence without timely statutory notice from the state.
6. Whether defendant's claim under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act was barred by collateral estoppel based on prior litigation.
7. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the larceny conviction involving the victim's automobile.
8. Whether defendant was denied the ability to obtain independent testing of hair samples and present a defense expert.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded