State v. Jeffrey Moten

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Jeffrey Moten’s conviction for first-degree child abuse involving serious bodily injury to his infant daughter. The court held that Moten failed to preserve his Confrontation Clause argument because counsel made only nonspecific objections to testimony about an ophthalmologist’s findings. The court also concluded that the narrow exception to Rhode Island’s raise-or-waive rule did not apply because the asserted constitutional rule was not novel at the time of trial.

Holdings

1. A bare objection, without stating the constitutional or other specific basis for the objection, was insufficient to preserve Moten's Confrontation Clause argument for appellate review.
2. The narrow exception for unpreserved constitutional claims involving a novel rule of law did not apply because the Confrontation Clause rule announced in Crawford predated Moten's trial.
3. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Moten preserved a Confrontation Clause challenge by making only general objections when the pediatrician testified about the ophthalmologist's out-of-court statements.
2. Whether the narrow exception to Rhode Island's raise-or-waive rule applied because the asserted Confrontation Clause argument involved a novel constitutional rule.
3. Whether the ophthalmologist's statements were testimonial under Crawford and its progeny.

Disposition

affirmed