Summary
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviews a criminal conviction for murder, conspiracy, and various firearm offenses following a joint trial with a codefendant. The defendant appealed, alleging errors regarding the denial of a severance motion, the admission of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b), the admission of hearsay statements under Rule 804(b)(3), improper lay opinion testimony under Rule 701, and the denial of a motion for a new trial. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion or clear error in the trial justice’s rulings and affirmed the judgment of conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Hang’s motion to sever his trial from Hay’s trial.
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior bad acts and crimes in the community under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Rule 403.
- Whether the admission of two alleged statements against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3) was reversible error.
- Whether the Superior Court improperly permitted a police sergeant to offer lay opinion testimony concerning the make of the vehicle shown in surveillance footage.
- Whether the Superior Court clearly erred or otherwise erred in denying Hang’s motion for a new trial challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conspiracy conviction.
Holdings
- The Superior Court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying Hang’s motion to sever his trial from Hay’s trial because Hang failed to demonstrate prejudice so substantial that it denied him a fair trial.
- The challenge to four categories of prior-acts evidence was waived because Hang did not object at trial or adequately raise the issue below. As to the preserved evidence concerning three prior shootings, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it for nonpropensity purposes including common scheme or plan, access to firearms, motive, opportunity, preparation, knowledge, or absence of mistake.
- Hang waived appellate review of the admission of Hay’s statements, “I need my grip” and “Ah Jay had no aim,” because he did not object when the statements were admitted or move to strike them.
- The challenge to the admission of the police sergeant’s lay opinion that the dark-colored vehicle was consistent with an Audi was waived because Hang raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
- The Superior Court did not clearly err in denying Hang’s motion for a new trial, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon.
Key quotations
“Viewing this evidence and testimony in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, we are satisfied that it is sufficient to establish that defendant conspired with Mr. Hay to commit assault with a dangerous weapon.” (35-36)
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of conviction and remand the record to the Superior Court.” (36)
Factual background
David Page was shot and killed in Providence in the early morning of June 26, 2018, after a dark-colored vehicle followed his Cadillac onto Lowell Avenue and shots were fired. The prosecution presented evidence connecting Hang and codefendant Hay to a stolen black Audi, a .22-caliber firearm, cell-site locations near the shooting, surveillance footage, and statements concerning gang rivals and the shooting. A cooperating witness, Kennedy Terrero, testified about the defendants’ movements, possession of the firearm, and post-shooting conduct, while other evidence included testimony from an eyewitness, police witnesses, and cell-phone records.
Procedural history
A grand jury indicted Hang and codefendant Chandanoeuth Hay in December 2019. Following a 2022 jury trial, Hang was convicted on all counts and received two consecutive life sentences, along with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts. The Superior Court denied his motion for a new trial, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment while remanding the record to the Superior Court.
Remand instructions
The record was remanded to the Providence County Superior Court.