State v. Ferreira

21 A.3d 355 (R.I. 2011) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · June 23, 2011 · No. No. 2009-172-C.A.

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed John Ferreira's convictions for one count of first-degree child molestation and three counts of second-degree child molestation. The court held that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material inconsistencies, defense testimony, or evidentiary issues when denying Ferreira's motion for a new trial.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Suttell; Suttell, C.J.; Goldberg, J.; Flaherty, J.; Robinson, J.; Indeglia, J.
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
June 23, 2011
Docket number
No. 2009-172-C.A.
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree child molestation and three counts of second-degree child molestation, challenging the denial of his motion for a new trial.
Standard of review
Review of a trial justice's decision on a motion for a new trial is deferential. The Supreme Court will disturb the decision only if the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence relating to a critical issue or was otherwise clearly wrong. The trial justice acts as a thirteenth juror, independently assessing credibility and the weight of the evidence.
Precedential value
Published Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
John Ferreira v. State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurestandard of reviewharmless errorevidencecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material inconsistencies in the State's evidence when denying the motion for a new trial.
  2. Whether the trial justice failed to consider the context of Amy's allegations, her possible motives to fabricate, and the defense witnesses' testimony.
  3. Whether the trial justice improperly relied on matters not admitted into evidence, including portions of a DCYF intake report.
  4. Whether any error in the trial justice's consideration of the DCYF report was harmless.

Holdings

  1. The trial justice did not overlook or misconceive any material inconsistency. The cited differences between Amy's pretrial and trial statements were either not inconsistent or did not concern the same conduct.
  2. The trial justice was not required to exhaustively analyze the evidence, refer to every piece of evidence, or expressly reject each defense witness's testimony.
  3. Any error from the trial justice's reference to portions of the DCYF intake report was harmless because the material was cumulative and the defendant's guilt was established by other competent evidence.

Key quotations

When ruling on a motion for a new trial, "the trial justice acts as a thirteenth juror and exercises independent judgment on the credibility of witnesses and on the weight of the evidence." (364)
Therefore, we hold that any error committed by the trial justice in referring to portions of the DCYF intake report was harmless and that, ultimately, the justice did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial. (369)

Factual background

Ferreira, the boyfriend of the victim's mother, lived in the household with the victim, Amy, and her younger brother. Amy testified that when she was twelve and thirteen, Ferreira repeatedly touched and licked her breasts, vaginal area, and buttocks and that the conduct occurred primarily at night. After Amy and her brother ran away to their father's home, Amy disclosed the alleged molestation to her stepmother, kept diary entries describing the conduct, and participated in a controlled telephone call with Ferreira. Ferreira denied sexual abuse and presented testimony challenging Amy's credibility and suggesting motives to fabricate.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Ferreira on four child-molestation counts following a July 2006 trial. The trial justice denied his motion for a new trial in a written decision issued November 3, 2006, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and probation. Ferreira appealed, and the Supreme Court decided the appeal after directing the parties to show cause why it should not be summarily decided.

Remand instructions

The record was remanded to the Rhode Island Superior Court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…