State v. Ricardo Florez

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Ricardo Florez’s conviction for second-degree child molestation sexual assault and his sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment, with eight years to serve and the remainder suspended with probation. The court held that Florez’s motion for a new trial was untimely, that his challenges concerning duplicity and jury instructions were waived, and that the trial justice properly permitted impeachment with a prior inconsistent witness statement. The excerpt also addresses the exclusion and use of portions of a witness statement.

Holdings

1. A motion for a new trial under Rule 33, when based on grounds other than newly discovered evidence, must be filed within the prescribed ten-day period or within additional time fixed by the trial justice during that period; the deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. Defendant's motion was untimely and was not properly before the trial justice or the Supreme Court.
2. A claim that a charging instrument is duplicitous must be raised by a motion under Rule 12(b)(2) or (3); a defendant who fails to raise the claim below cannot recast it as an unpreserved challenge to the jury instructions or verdict form on appeal.
3. A witness's prior inconsistent statement may be admitted under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) when the witness testifies and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement; the statement need not have been made under oath in a trial, hearing, deposition, or other proceeding. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion by allowing the State to use Joshua's prior statement.
4. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the handling of Glenn's witness statement because the record did not show that the trial justice barred the proposed cross-examination, and defendant failed to preserve or adequately brief the alternative argument that the statement was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court properly denied defendant's motion for a new trial despite the motion being filed outside the jurisdictional period in Rule 33 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
2. Whether defendant's challenge to the alleged duplicity of the charging instrument and to the unanimity of the jury verdict was preserved for appellate review.
3. Whether the State properly used Joshua's prior inconsistent witness statement after Joshua denied that a second touching occurred.
4. Whether the trial justice properly limited defendant's use of Glenn's witness statement.

Disposition

affirmed