State v. Pedro Marte

92 A.3d 148 (R.I. 2014) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · May 30, 2014 · No. 2013-98-C.A. (P2/11-447B)

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Pedro Marte’s conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The court held that the state’s late disclosure of cash found in Marte’s wallet did not require exclusion of the evidence or another remedy under Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court concluded that the trial justice did not clearly err or abuse his discretion in permitting limited testimony about the cash.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell; Chief Justice Suttell; Justice Goldberg; Justice Flaherty; Justice Robinson; Justice Indeglia
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
May 30, 2014
Docket number
2013-98-C.A. (P2/11-447B)
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from a Superior Court judgment of conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine, challenging the admission of cash-related evidence and the trial court's response to the State's late disclosure of that evidence.
Standard of review
The denial of a motion in limine is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Whether a Rule 16 discovery violation occurred is reviewed under a narrow clear-error standard, and a discovery ruling will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Pedro Marte v. State of Rhode Island
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

discovery criminalevidencecriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial justice abused his discretion by denying Marte's motion in limine to exclude evidence that he possessed cash when arrested.
  2. Whether the State's last-minute disclosure of the cash evidence violated Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure and required a remedy.

Holdings

  1. The late disclosure did not constitute a Rule 16 discovery violation on this record because the State represented that it had only learned of the information shortly before trial, the disclosure was not shown to be intentional, and the defendant had prior notice that the codefendant claimed to have paid him money.
  2. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion by allowing limited testimony that Marte had some amount of cash, less than $300, at the time of arrest.

Key quotations

A trial justice considering an alleged discovery violation pursuant to Rule 16 * * * should examine four factors: (1) the reason for the nondisclosure; (2) the prejudice to the other party; (3) whether or not a continuance can rectify any such prejudice; and (4) any other relevant factors. (at 151)
The fact that the defendant had some amount of cash on his person at the time of arrest is not unfairly prejudicial (at 153)

Factual background

Police detectives observed Marte meet Seth McGough in Providence and saw what appeared to be a rapid transaction between them. McGough fled and discarded two bags containing 3.1 grams of cocaine; he later testified that he had purchased cocaine from Marte. On the morning trial began, the State disclosed that an arrest inventory listed $185 in Marte's wallet, although the money had not been seized or photographed. The trial court permitted limited testimony that Marte possessed less than $300 in cash after a brief recess and an agreement restricting the testimony.

Procedural history

After a jury found Marte guilty of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, the Providence County Superior Court sentenced him to ten years at the Adult Correctional Institutions, with two years to serve and eight years suspended. Before trial, the State disclosed that an arrest inventory listed cash in Marte's wallet. The trial justice denied the motion in limine, allowed a brief recess, and the parties agreed that the State would not disclose the precise amount of cash. The Rhode Island Supreme Court summarily considered the appeal and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…