Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Yara Chum’s convictions for two counts of felony assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence. The court held that the challenge to the admissibility of Chum’s police statement was not properly before it because the statement was not introduced at trial and the Fourth Amendment claim was not preserved. The court also upheld limits on cross-examination concerning the statement, concluding that the statement was inadmissible hearsay when offered by the defendant and that the questioning exceeded the scope of direct examination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court could review the denial of Chum's motion to suppress her statement on the ground that it was the fruit of an unlawful arrest when the statement was not introduced into evidence at trial and the Fourth Amendment issue was not preserved.
- Whether the trial justice violated Chum's Sixth Amendment and Rhode Island constitutional confrontation rights by limiting cross-examination of police witnesses concerning Chum's unadmitted statement.
- Whether the trial justice properly excluded inquiry into Chum's statement as inadmissible hearsay, beyond the scope of direct examination, and an impermissible attempt to place the defendant's unsworn testimony before the jury.
Holdings
- A defendant may not obtain appellate review of the denial of a motion to suppress evidence that was never introduced into evidence at trial, because there is nothing for the exclusionary rule to suppress or remedy.
- Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, facts and reasonably trustworthy information known to the officer would warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that an offense had been or was being committed and that the defendant committed it. The officer had probable cause to arrest Chum.
- The trial justice did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights by preventing her from eliciting her own out-of-court statement through cross-examination of police witnesses where the statement was not offered against her, was outside the scope of direct examination, and would have functioned as unsworn defense testimony.
Key quotations
“if the alleged improperly obtained evidence has not been admitted at trial, there is nothing that the exclusionary rule can accomplish. In such a case, the deterrent function served by the exclusionary rule has no place.” (at 8)
“The defendant did not take the stand at trial. He may not testify by other means, including by way of the unsworn statements made to police.” (at 12)
“Therefore, we are satisfied that the trial justice properly precluded the defendant from eliciting his statement to police during the cross-examination of Det. Otrando and Ptlm. Bucci.” (at 14)
Factual background
After a marijuana robbery and related threats, two Asian men approached a residence in Providence where several men were gathered. One of the men, later identified as Chum, directed codefendant Samnang Tep to shoot the men; Tep fired once toward the porch and the two men fled. Police received descriptions of two suspect Acuras driven by Asian males, located a red Acura matching the dispatch information, observed evasive and suspicious conduct, and arrested Chum and Tep. Later, after receiving Miranda warnings, Chum acknowledged her rights and gave an oral statement admitting participation, but the statement was not introduced into evidence at trial.
Procedural history
A five-count criminal information was filed against Chum and codefendants. After an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied Chum's motion to suppress, finding that her statements were voluntary and that she had received Miranda warnings. During trial, the court entered a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count and the State dismissed the firearm-carrying count. The jury convicted Chum on the remaining three counts; the trial justice denied a motion for a new trial and imposed concurrent ten-year sentences on the assault counts and a consecutive ten-year sentence on the firearm conviction, with five years to serve and five years suspended with probation. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Remand instructions
The papers may be remanded to the Superior Court.