Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Leopoldo Belen’s convictions for four counts of first-degree sexual assault. The court held that an inadvertent prosecutor reference to the Adult Correctional Institutions during closing argument was timely challenged but not sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial. The court further held that the defendant waived his challenge to the prosecutor’s improper personalization regarding sexual-assault-kit procedures and, in any event, the comment was not prejudicial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's objection to the prosecutor's inadvertent reference to the ACI was timely preserved even though it was made after the prosecutor completed closing argument.
- Whether the prosecutor's ACI reference was so prejudicial that the trial justice abused his discretion by denying the motion to pass the case or declare a mistrial.
- Whether the defendant waived his challenge to the prosecutor's personal-experience reference by failing to object, request a cautionary instruction, or move for a mistrial.
- Whether, notwithstanding waiver, the prosecutor's personal-experience reference was sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial.
Holdings
- Under the circumstances, the defendant's objection and motion for a mistrial made after the prosecutor completed closing argument were timely, even though counsel did not object immediately after the remark.
- The prosecutor's improper ACI reference was not so prejudicial that a mistrial was required; the trial justice acted within his discretion in denying the motion to pass the case.
- The defendant waived his challenge to the prosecutor's reference to her personal experience because he did not object, request a cautionary instruction, or move for a mistrial.
- Even if the challenge had been preserved, the prosecutor's personal-experience reference was ill advised but not sufficiently prejudicial to render the proceedings unfair or require a mistrial.
Key quotations
“To preserve an objection to a prosecutor’s closing argument, defense counsel must not only make an objection at the time, but must make a request for a cautionary instruction or move for a mistrial.” (5)
“The term “ACI” was dropped by the prosecutor into a completely unrelated sentence. The term was a non sequitur because it added nothing to the meaning of the sentence.” (8)
Factual background
Emily testified that Belen physically and sexually assaulted her in their shared apartment, including raping her with a hair-mousse bottle and strangling her. She escaped while covered by a sheet, obtained help from a neighbor, and was taken to a hospital, where a sexual-assault examination was performed. The State presented DNA evidence, evidence from the recorded telephone call in which Belen apologized and said he had made a mistake, and testimony from the neighbor. During closing argument, the prosecutor inadvertently referred to the Adult Correctional Institutions as the “ACI” and also referred to her personal experience with gynecological examinations.
Procedural history
A grand jury indicted Belen on four counts of first-degree sexual assault. After a jury returned guilty verdicts on all four counts, the Superior Court sentenced him to four concurrent life sentences. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment and remanded the record to the Superior Court.
Remand instructions
The record shall be remanded to the Providence County Superior Court.