State v. Coningford

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed James Coningford's conviction for second-degree child molestation sexual assault. The court held that testimony concerning two prior incidents of sexual misconduct was admissible under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show a common scheme or plan, and that the trial justice properly instructed the jury on the limited purpose of that evidence. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to a lesser-included instruction on simple assault or battery because the evidence did not create an actual and adequate dispute regarding the sexual-gratification element.

Holdings

1. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion by admitting Joseph's and Roger's testimony because the prior incidents were sufficiently similar and nonremote, relevant and reasonably necessary to prove the sexual-purpose element, and accompanied by limiting instructions restricting the jury's use of the evidence to a proper Rule 404(b) purpose rather than propensity.
2. The trial justice could not refuse a lesser-included-offense instruction solely because the defendant failed to submit a written request; Rule 30 makes written requests permissive except for affirmative defenses, and a timely objection preserves the issue for appeal.
3. Coningford was not entitled to an instruction on simple assault or battery because, although some evidence could have supported the lesser offense, there was no actual and adequate dispute over the distinguishing element: whether the touching was intended for sexual gratification or arousal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial justice abused his discretion by admitting testimony concerning Coningford's prior sexual misconduct involving Joseph and Roger under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 404(b).
2. Whether the trial justice erred by refusing to instruct the jury on simple assault or battery as a lesser-included offense of second-degree child molestation sexual assault.
3. Whether the trial justice could refuse the lesser-included-offense instruction solely because the defense had not submitted a written requested instruction.

Disposition

affirmed