State v. Kimberly Fry

130 A.3d 812 (R.I. 2016) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · February 1, 2016 · No. No. 2013-221-C.A. (W1/10-413A)

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Kimberly Fry’s conviction for second-degree murder in the death of her eight-year-old daughter. The court addressed jury instructions concerning diminished capacity and accident, alleged improper impeachment and leading questions, an asserted violation of a sequestration order, and admission of crime-scene video evidence. The court held that the diminished-capacity issue was waived and that the accident instructions were adequate; the excerpt does not include the court’s discussion of all remaining issues.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Gilbert V. Indeglia; Chief Justice Frank Williams Suttell; Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg; Justice Francis X. Flaherty; Justice William P. Robinson III; Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
February 1, 2016
Docket number
No. 2013-221-C.A. (W1/10-413A)
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for second-degree murder and the denial of her motion for a new trial by the Washington County Superior Court.
Standard of review
Jury instructions are reviewed de novo. The refusal to give a lesser-included-offense instruction is reviewed by examining whether the evidence supports the instruction. The admission or exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 and the denial of a mistrial are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with reversal requiring prejudicial error. Unpreserved claims are reviewed under Rhode Island's raise-or-waive rule.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Kimberly Fry v. State of Rhode Island
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

jury instructionscriminal procedureevidenceappellate procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidencejury instructionsappellate proceduremurder

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on diminished capacity.
  2. Whether the accident instruction was inadequate.
  3. Whether the State improperly impeached a witness and used leading questions during direct examination.
  4. Whether the prosecutor violated the sequestration order by conferring with a witness during breaks in testimony and whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial.
  5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a video depicting the crime scene and the victim's body.

Holdings

  1. The diminished-capacity instruction claim was waived because defense counsel did not make a sufficiently clear, on-the-record objection before the jury retired to deliberate.
  2. The trial court adequately instructed the jury on accident; a more elaborate, stand-alone accident instruction was not required.
  3. The challenges to the State's impeachment questioning and most of its leading questions were waived because Fry failed to make sufficiently specific contemporaneous objections. The one preserved leading-question challenge did not establish an abuse of discretion or substantial prejudice.
  4. The prosecutor's discussion with the medical examiner during a break did not violate the sequestration order as interpreted by the trial justice, and denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion.
  5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the seven-minute-plus crime-scene video, including footage of Camden's body.

Key quotations

Nonetheless, such an objection must be made on the record and in a manner that permits this Court to conduct appropriate appellate review. (130 A.3d at 820)
We are satisfied based on an examination of the record that the trial justice instructed the jury adequately concerning defendant's claim of accidental homicide. (130 A.3d at 824)
Without a request from counsel for a specific instruction or an instruction that specifically proscribes discussion with the prosecutor, which would only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, we cannot interpret the trial justice’s order to have such breadth as to alter typical trial practices. (130 A.3d at 829)

Factual background

Kimberly Fry was the primary caregiver for her daughter Camden, who had ADHD, anxiety, and recurrent behavioral episodes. On August 10, 2009, after Camden returned home from the beach, Fry remained alone with her while her husband left to play hockey. Fry later reported that Camden had experienced a prolonged crying episode and that she had restrained Camden during a physical struggle, including sitting on her and covering her mouth and nose. The next morning, Camden was found dead in her bed, and Fry was found groggy after ingesting several medications.

Procedural history

A jury found Kimberly Fry guilty of second-degree murder for the death of her eight-year-old daughter. The Superior Court sentenced Fry to forty years' imprisonment, with twenty years to serve and twenty years suspended with probation, and denied her motion for a new trial. Fry timely appealed, challenging jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, the handling of an alleged sequestration-order violation, and admission of a crime-scene video.

Remand instructions

The materials associated with the case may be remanded to the Superior Court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…