Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed Curtis Maxie’s convictions for first-degree sexual assault, sex trafficking of a minor, and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor. The court held that the former sex-trafficking statute was fatally defective because it failed to criminalize the conduct described in its operative subsection, and therefore vacated the convictions on the trafficking and conspiracy counts. The court affirmed the remaining convictions and addressed challenges involving duplicity, uncharged misconduct, and recorded telephone calls.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether G.L. 1956 § 11-67-6 failed to state a crime because subsection (b) described prohibited conduct but ended with a dangling 'or' without expressly declaring that conduct criminal.
- Whether the conspiracy count also had to be dismissed because the purported underlying sex-trafficking offense was not a crime under § 11-67-6.
- Whether the trial justice erred in denying a motion to pass after the prosecution's witness referred to Maxie's prostitution activities and alleged history.
- Whether the admission of recorded telephone conversations violated relevance, Rule 404(b), or Rule 403 principles, or whether those objections were waived.
Holdings
- Section 11-67-6 failed to state a crime because it described prohibited conduct and provided penalties but omitted language identifying the described conduct as an offense. The court could not repair the omission through statutory interpretation because doing so would require judicial redrafting of a penal statute.
- The conspiracy conviction had to be vacated because the conspiracy charged an agreement to commit sex trafficking under § 11-67-6, and that statute failed to state a crime.
- The trial justice did not clearly err in denying the motion to pass. The challenged remarks were stricken, the jury received cautionary instructions, and related testimony was admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the witness's state of mind.
- The challenges to the recorded telephone conversations were waived because defense counsel's objections were too general to preserve distinct claims based on relevance, Rule 404(b), and Rule 403.
Key quotations
“Here, however, there is no ambiguity, no language that is susceptible of more than one reasonable meaning, no language to construe.” (339)
“a crime is made up of two parts, forbidden conduct and a prescribed penalty.” (340)
“Section 11-67-6 fails to state a crime, and for us to view that statute as the state urges us, we would be required to redraft it, not merely to interpret or construe it.” (341)
“Based on the generalized nature of those objections, it is our opinion that the defendant has waived his ability to challenge the trial justice's decision” (344)
Factual background
Sixteen-year-old Emily ran away from home and was brought by Marquis Melia to Maxie's Pawtucket residence. Maxie sexually assaulted Emily, photographed and advertised her on Backpage, arranged for men to pay for sexual acts, and retained the proceeds. Police later located Emily at Maxie's residence, and a grand jury indicted Maxie for sexual assault, sex trafficking of a minor, and conspiracy.
Procedural history
A Providence County grand jury indicted Maxie on three counts of first-degree sexual assault, one count of sex trafficking of a minor under G.L. 1956 § 11-67-6, and one count of conspiracy to commit that offense. The Superior Court denied Maxie's motion to dismiss counts 4 and 6, and the case proceeded to trial. After conviction and sentencing, the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the convictions on counts 4 and 6 and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Remand instructions
The judgment of conviction was vacated as to counts 4 and 6, and the papers were ordered returned to the Superior Court. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.