Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Victor Tavares's second motion for a new trial following his convictions for first-degree sexual assault and conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault. The Court held that the motion was untimely under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and that the defendant's Rule 16(a)(7) discovery argument was not preserved because it was raised only after the verdict. The case was remanded to the Superior Court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Tavares's July 9, 2024 motion for a new trial was timely under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.
- Whether Tavares's Rule 16(a)(7) discovery claim was preserved for appellate review when it was first raised after the verdict in a motion for a new trial.
Holdings
- A motion for a new trial based on grounds other than newly discovered evidence must be filed within ten days after the verdict or within additional time fixed by the court during that ten-day period. Tavares's July 9, 2024 motion, filed nearly three years after his September 30, 2021 convictions, was untimely and was not properly before the Superior Court or the Supreme Court.
- An issue not raised during trial cannot be asserted for the first time in a motion for a new trial and is not preserved for appellate review. Because Tavares first raised the Rule 16(a)(7) issue after the verdict, the Supreme Court declined to address it.
Key quotations
“Rule 33 clearly requires that a motion for new trial be filed within ten days of the verdict or ‘such further time as the court may fix during the ten-day period.’” (at 4)
“an issue that was not raised during trial ‘cannot belatedly be asserted during the motion for a new trial.’” (at 5)
“Because Tavares never raised the Rule 16(a)(7) issue until the motion for a new trial, we again conclude that “it was not properly preserved, and we decline to address it here.”” (at 5)
Factual background
Tavares was convicted on September 30, 2021, of two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault. During discovery, the State provided a list of expected witnesses, but only seven of approximately thirty listed witnesses testified. Tavares did not raise the alleged Rule 16(a)(7) violation during trial and first asserted it in a post-verdict motion for a new trial.
Procedural history
Tavares was convicted in the Superior Court of two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court previously affirmed those convictions in State v. Tavares, 312 A.3d 449 (R.I. 2024), rejecting the Rule 16 discovery argument as waived and, alternatively, meritless. On July 9, 2024, Tavares filed another motion for a new trial based on the same discovery issue; the Superior Court denied it as untimely and waived. The Supreme Court affirmed that order.
Remand instructions
The papers in the case were remanded to the Superior Court.