Summary
This Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion reviews a defendant's conviction for first- and second-degree sexual assault following a jury trial. The defendant appealed on four grounds, including the trial court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction on force or coercion, the reading back of witness testimony during deliberations, the admission of rebuttal testimony regarding witness demeanor, and the denial of a motion for a new trial. The appellate court applied de novo and abuse of discretion standards of review to each issue and ultimately affirmed the Superior Court's judgment of conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to give the defendant's requested jury instruction on the force or coercion element of first‑degree sexual assault.
- Whether the trial judge abused discretion in permitting a read‑back of testimony beyond the jury's request.
- Whether the admission of rebuttal testimony constituted impermissible bolstering or vouching.
- Whether the trial judge erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial.
Holdings
- The trial judge's jury instruction was adequate; the court affirmed the conviction.
- The trial judge did not abuse discretion; the read‑back was fair, impartial, and cumulative.
- The objection was not preserved; the appellate court will not consider the bolstering claim.
- The trial judge's denial of the new‑trial motion was proper; the conviction is affirmed.
Key quotations
“"Force or coercion in this context means that the accused— in this case, obviously the defendant—overcomes— in this case, [Stephanie]—through the application of physical force or violence. The law does not expect the complaining witness— in this case [Stephanie]—as part of the State's proof of the use of physical force or coercion to engage in heroic resistance when such behavior could be fruitless or foolhardy."” (476)
“"The read‑back was neither one‑sided nor slanted in favor of either party. And, in any event, it simply consisted of testimony that the jury had already heard at trial; as such, it could be considered cumulative."” (478)
“"Under the raise‑or‑waive rule, in order to preserve an objection for appellate review, an evidentiary objection must be sufficiently focused so as to call the trial justice's attention to the basis for said objection."” (480)
Factual background
In March 2006 the defendant, Kevin Adefusika, invited a teenage friend and her companion into his home where he forcibly touched the complainant's breasts and vagina despite her repeated refusals. The complainant escaped, called her mother, and later reported the assault to police. The defendant was convicted of first‑degree sexual assault (penetration) and second‑degree sexual assault (hand‑to‑breast contact).
Procedural history
The defendant was convicted of first‑degree and second‑degree sexual assault after a four‑day jury trial. The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and the conviction was sentenced to forty years. The defendant appealed, challenging the jury instruction on force or coercion, the read‑back of testimony, the admission of rebuttal testimony, and the denial of a new‑trial motion.
Remand instructions
The record may be remanded to the Washington County Superior Court.