State v. Erminelli

991 A.2d 1064 (R.I. 2010) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · April 22, 2010 · No. No. 2009-64-C.A.

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Robert Erminelli's conviction for second-degree child molestation sexual assault and the denial of his motion for a new trial under Rule 33. The court held that the trial justice's credibility determinations and findings that the state proved the required sexual contact and victim-age elements were not clearly wrong.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Flaherty, J.; Suttell, C.J.; Goldberg, J.; Robinson, J.
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
April 22, 2010
Docket number
No. 2009-64-C.A.
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for second-degree child molestation sexual assault and from the denial of his motion for a new trial under Rule 33 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure following a jury-waived trial.
Standard of review
On review of the denial of a Rule 33 motion following a jury-waived trial, the Supreme Court applies the same deferential standard applicable to review of the trial justice's factual findings on the merits. Credibility determinations and factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong or unless the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence on a controlling issue.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island; precedential.
Parties
Robert Erminelli v. State of Rhode Island
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewevidence

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial justice clearly erred in denying Erminelli's Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on allegedly insufficient and unreliable evidence.
  2. Whether the evidence credited by the trial justice established the elements of second-degree child molestation sexual assault, including sexual contact with a person fourteen years of age or under and the requisite purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or assault.

Holdings

  1. The trial justice's credibility determinations and factual findings were not clearly wrong and did not misconceive or overlook material evidence; therefore, the denial of the Rule 33 motion was proper.
  2. The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Erminelli engaged in sexual contact with a victim fourteen years of age or under for a purpose that could reasonably be construed as sexual arousal, gratification, or assault.

Key quotations

When reviewing determinations of credibility and findings of fact by a trial justice sitting without a jury, this Court will not disturb the trial justice's findings unless they are clearly wrong or the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence on a controlling issue. (1069)
As a result of our review of the record, we hold that the trial justice's findings of fact and credibility determinations will not be disturbed on appeal. (1070)

Factual background

The State's witnesses testified that Robert Erminelli took eleven-year-old Megan into a wooded area and intentionally rubbed his penis against her naked buttocks. Two boys who observed the incident identified Erminelli and gave accounts that the trial justice found credible, while Megan and her siblings denied that any sexual contact occurred. The trial justice credited the boys' testimony, found the conflicting testimony of Megan and her siblings not credible, and convicted Erminelli of second-degree child molestation sexual assault.

Procedural history

The State charged Erminelli by criminal information with second-degree child molestation sexual assault and assault with intent to commit sexual assault. A Superior Court justice sitting without a jury convicted him under G.L. 1956 § 11-37-8.3 and acquitted him of the assault-with-intent charge. The trial justice denied Erminelli's Rule 33 motion for a new trial, and Erminelli timely appealed. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed.

Remand instructions

The record may be remanded to the Superior Court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…