State v. Markus Matthews

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Markus Matthews's conviction for first-degree robbery resulting in injury. The court rejected his double-jeopardy challenge to charging alternative theories of robbery and upheld the admission of a codefendant's recorded police statement as a prior inconsistent statement. The court also concluded that the admission of the statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Holdings

1. The double-jeopardy challenge was waived because Matthews did not raise it by pretrial motion as required by Rule 12(b)(2). Even if preserved, the challenge would fail because Matthews was convicted and punished for only one robbery offense, and the jury's consideration of alternative theories did not create multiple punishments or inconsistent verdicts.
2. When one offense may be committed by multiple means, the preferable practice is to charge the offense in a single count alleging the alternative theories, and the trial justice must use instructions and a verdict form that ensure the defendant is convicted, if at all, of only one offense.
3. A witness's professed failure of memory may qualify as inconsistent testimony when the trial justice determines that the claimed memory loss is effectively an implied denial of the prior statement. The prosecutor therefore could question Long about his police statement, and the recording was admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A).
4. Admission of Long's recorded police statement did not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because Long appeared at trial and was subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the circumstances surrounding it.
5. Any error in permitting the prosecutor to use leading questions with Long was harmless because the recorded statement was properly admitted and the leading questions were necessary to address the witness's claimed inability to remember.
6. Long's statements implicating Matthews were admissible as adoptive admissions under Rule 801(d)(2)(B) because Matthews heard and understood the accusations, had an opportunity to respond, remained silent, demonstrated the choke-hold, and later said, 'We just told you what we did.'
7. The trial justice properly denied Matthews's motion for a new trial because she independently assessed the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, agreed with the jury's verdict, and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether charging first-degree robbery under separate dangerous-weapon and injury theories and submitting those theories separately to the jury violated double-jeopardy principles.
2. Whether Michael Long's recorded police statement was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) when Long testified but claimed a failure of memory.
3. Whether admission of Long's recorded statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
4. Whether the prosecutor's use of leading questions with Long constituted prejudicial error.
5. Whether statements made by Long in Matthews's presence were admissible as adoptive admissions under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B).
6. Whether the trial justice properly denied Matthews's motion for a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed