State v. Erwin Grantley

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Erwin Grantley’s convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling house and breaking and entering of a dwelling house. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Grantley lacked consent to enter the victim’s home and rejected his request to recognize implied consent as a separate defense. The court also upheld the denial of a new trial, deferring to the trial justice’s credibility and evidentiary determinations.

Holdings

1. Rhode Island law does not require recognition of a separate implied-consent defense because a defendant may argue that he had consent to enter under the breaking-and-entering statute. The State retains the ultimate burden of proving lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, although it may first establish a prima facie case and thereby shift the burden of production to the defendant.
2. The trial justice properly denied the motion for a new trial because she applied the Rule 33 standard, independently assessed credibility and the weight of the evidence, and reasonably found that Grantley lacked permission to enter Bruce's home.
3. The trial justice properly denied the Rule 33 motion because the evidence supported findings that Grantley assaulted Bruce with a dangerous weapon in the dwelling and acted with intent to murder her.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State failed to prove lack of consent for the breaking-and-entering conviction because Grantley allegedly had implied consent based on his prior relationship with Bruce.
2. Whether the trial justice improperly denied Grantley's Rule 33 motion for a new trial on the breaking-and-entering count.
3. Whether the evidence was insufficient to support the assault-with-a-dangerous-weapon conviction because the State did not establish that Grantley caused Bruce's chest wound or acted with intent to kill.

Disposition

affirmed