State v. DeAnthony Allen

68 A.3d 512 (R.I. 2013) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · June 19, 2013 · No. 2012-176-C.A. (P2/11-1196A)

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed DeAnthony Allen’s conviction for first-degree child abuse and his twenty-year sentence. The court rejected his vagueness challenge to Rhode Island General Laws § 11-9-5.3, upheld admission of his written statement after finding a knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver, and affirmed denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
William P. Robinson III, Associate Justice; Frank Williams Suttell, Chief Justice; Maureen McKenna Goldberg, Justice; Paul A. Flaherty, Justice; William P. Robinson III, Justice; Gilbert V. Indeglia, Justice
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
June 19, 2013
Docket number
2012-176-C.A. (P2/11-1196A)
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from a Providence County Superior Court judgment of conviction for first-degree child abuse after the trial court denied his motions to suppress, dismiss, for judgment of acquittal, and for a new trial.
Standard of review
Constitutional challenges to statutes are reviewed with every reasonable intendment in favor of constitutionality, and the challenger bears the burden of proving unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. For suppression rulings, the Court independently examines the record, views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, reverses only for clear error in factual findings and an independent determination that constitutional rights were violated. The Court reviewed the denial of the judgment of acquittal and new-trial motions in light of its conclusion that the confession was admissible.
Precedential value
Published Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
DeAnthony Allen v. State of Rhode Island
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduremiranda rightssuppression of evidencedue processvoid for vagueness

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Rhode Island's first-degree child-abuse statute, including its definition of serious bodily injury, was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Allen's conduct.
  2. Whether Allen knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before giving his written statement to police.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Allen's motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.

Holdings

  1. Section 11-9-5.3 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Allen because it clearly prohibited inflicting serious bodily injury on a child in the defendant's care and specifically defined serious bodily injury in terms that encompassed the infant's injuries.
  2. The State proved that Allen knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, so the trial court properly admitted his written statement.
  3. The challenges to the denial of the motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial failed because they depended on exclusion of Allen's confession, and the confession was properly admitted.

Key quotations

It is our opinion that § 11-9-5.3 clearly provided defendant with notice that his conduct was unlawful. (at 516)
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the entire record, we perceive no error in the motion justice's ruling on the motion to dismiss; accordingly, we affirm that ruling. (at 518)

Factual background

Allen cared for his four-month-old son while the child's mother was away. After the infant became fussy, Allen admitted in a written statement that he shook the child, squeezed his face and chin, and later picked him up after he fell. The infant suffered severe injuries, including bleeding in and around the brain, retinal hemorrhaging, rib fractures, seizures, and permanent disabilities. Allen went to the Pawtucket police station, read and signed a Miranda rights form, and then provided the written statement admitted at trial.

Procedural history

The State charged Allen by criminal information with first-degree child abuse under Rhode Island General Laws § 11-9-5.3(b)(1). The Superior Court denied his motion to suppress his written statement, his vagueness-based motion to dismiss, and his motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. A jury found him guilty, and the trial justice sentenced him to twenty years to serve. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…