State v. Fuentes, 2014–342–C.A. (P1/10–203AG)

Decision Date21 June 2017
Docket NumberNo. 2014–342–C.A. (P1/10–203AG),2014–342–C.A. (P1/10–203AG)
Citation162 A.3d 638
Parties STATE v. Jesus Danilo FUENTES.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Lauren S. Zurier, Department of Attorney General, for State.

Lara E. Montecalvo, Office of the Public Defender, for Defendant.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, and Robinson, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Robinson, for the Court.

The defendant, Jesus Danilo Fuentes, appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial held in the Superior Court for Providence County. He was found guilty of Count One, the first-degree murder of Henry Vargas, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11–23–1 ; he was also found guilty of Count Two, the discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of violence, "resulting in the death of Henry Vargas," in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11–47–3.2(b)(3). The defendant's contention on appeal is that the trial justice erred when, in the defendant's words, "he refused to give an eyewitness identification jury instruction approved by this Court in State v. Werner , 851 A.2d 1093, 1102 (R.I. 2004)." We disagree with the defendant's contention in this regard; and, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

In the early morning hours of November 6, 2009, Henry Vargas was shot outside Club Platinum, a nightclub on Broad Street in Providence; and, tragically, he died as a result. His girlfriend, Carmelina Bueno, was an eyewitness to that shooting.

On January 15, 2010, a Providence County grand jury indicted defendant on two counts: Count One, the first-degree murder of Henry Vargas, in violation of § 11–23–1 ; and Count Two, the discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of violence, resulting in the death of Henry Vargas, in violation of § 11–47–3.2(b)(3). The defendant's jury trial, which was held in June of 2011, involved the testimony of twenty-two witnesses (seventeen testifying on behalf of the state and five testifying on behalf of the defense). At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of both of the above-referenced counts. On June 8, 2012, the trial justice sentenced defendant to two consecutive life sentences. A timely notice of appeal was filed.

We recount below the salient aspects of defendant's trial to the extent necessary to provide context for the single issue raised on appeal—whether or not the trial justice committed reversible error in denying defendant's motion for a jury instruction that would include, verbatim, particular language from the jury instructions in Werner , 851 A.2d at 1102 (i.e. , the Werner instruction),1 which language cautioned the jurors in that earlier case about the fallibility of eyewitness identification.2

The Testimony of Carmelina Bueno

Carmelina ("Carmen")3 Bueno, the sole testifying eyewitness to the shooting of her boyfriend, Henry Vargas, testified that they had been "partner [s]" for five years. She stated that, on the night of November 5, 2009, she and Henry "went to a nightclub [in Providence] called Platinum," where they arrived at approximately 11:30 or 11:45 p.m. and from which they left at 1:00 a.m. She testified that, upon leaving Club Platinum, as she and Henry were crossing Aldrich Street (a street that intersects Broad Street, where Club Platinum is located)4 to walk towards Henry's parked car, "there were two people behind [them]"—one woman and one man; she added that she looked at the man for a "[f]ew seconds." In addition, she stated that she saw another female, who she said was "cross[ing] the street." Her testimony was that, once she and Henry reached his car, she walked to the passenger side, while he went to the driver's side. Carmen testified on direct examination that the above-referenced man, who was behind them as they crossed Aldrich Street, "called Henry out to fight and said[:] ‘You fat one, didn't you want to fight me? Come now.’ " When she was further asked on direct whether or not she "notice[d] anything about the man as he said those words[,]" she replied: "I kept looking at him to see if it was true that he wanted to fight, but, when I saw him smiling, then I turned my face towards Henry. And Henry was already running towards him." It was Carmen's testimony that she "walked towards the back" of Henry's car because Henry was no longer in her sight. Then, she and the prosecutor engaged in the following exchange about the shooting incident:

"[PROSECUTOR]: What's the next thing you remember?
"[CARMEN]: The man grabbed the gun. (Witness crying) * * *. And he started shooting at [Henry]. (Pause) I called Henry, and I told him to come back.
"[PROSECUTOR]: Carmen, you said the man pulled out a gun?
"[CARMEN]: He took the gun out of the jacket.
"[PROSECUTOR]: Did you see him fire a shot?
"[CARMEN]: Yes. I saw him. I can't forget that.
"* * *
"[PROSECUTOR]: * * * [W]hat happened next?
"[CARMEN]: He kept shooting. Henry came to me.
"[PROSECUTOR]: From the time that you heard the man say ‘Hey fat boy,’ until the time that he was done shooting, how long did you look at the man?
"[CARMEN]: The whole time he was shooting.
"[PROSECUTOR]: Do you know how—can you estimate how long that was?
"[CARMEN]: To me, it was an eternity, but I don't know."

Carmen further testified that, while the shooting was taking place, she "didn't do anything" and "stood there," looking at the shooter, who faced in her direction; she added that she focused on the shooter's face, particularly "his smile." When Carmen was asked whether "anything that distracted [her] view of the [shooter,]" she answered in the negative. She also testified to having simultaneously heard one of the two previously mentioned women who were close to the scene of the shooting say: Danilo, "what are you doing?"5 Carmen stated that she saw the shooter run, and she said that he "kept on shooting;"6 she added that, in reaction to the shots being fired, the two above-referenced women, both of whom were standing near the shooter, started running. Carmen stated that she told Henry to "throw [him]self on the ground." On cross-examination, Carmen testified that, after the shooting, Henry told her that he had been hit; and she said that she "walked to him to see what had happened." It was further Carmen's testimony that she saw the shooter, who had been running, get into the passenger side of a dark-colored SUV parked on Aldrich Street, which vehicle then departed. She stated that, after calling 911, she saw Henry lying on the ground and she felt afraid that "[he] was going to die." Carmen conceded on cross-examination that her attention was on Henry at that moment. She further testified that two of the three security guards from Club Platinum7 approached her and one of them asked what had happened. She stated that she told that inquiring security guard that "he knew who had done it;" she added, however, that he replied that he did not know.

Upon being questioned at trial as to the description of the shooter, Carmen replied: "He didn't look too tall." She added that the shooter was "maybe five-nine, [or] five-ten." Carmen testified that "[h]e was 36 or 37 years old" and weighed about 170 pounds. She further described the shooter as having had "short black hair" and "a clean face" and no facial hair. Carmen added that she had seen the shooter wearing "jeans and a [black] jacket."8 It was also her testimony on cross-examination that she had previously told the police that the shooter "looked and sounded Dominican;" however, in her testimony before the grand jury, she had said that the shooter had "light skin, like an Indian." At trial, Carmen explained as follows the just-quoted description of the shooter: "For us, an Indian is a person [who is] not dark nor white." When Carmen was asked if she were referring to a Native American, she replied: "No. An Hispanic."

On direct examination, Carmen stated that, at 4:30 a.m. in the morning of the November 6 shooting, she gave a statement to Detective Kenny Court of the Providence Police Department. Carmen further testified that she met with Det. Court on three occasions—viz. , November 6, 7, and 10. She said that, on one of those occasions, the detective showed her a photograph of DJ Nelson, a disc jockey who had been at Club Platinum on the night in question; she stated that she responded to the detective that DJ Nelson and the person who killed Henry "look[ ] alike, but DJ Nelson is darker." Although Carmen admitted that she could not "determine the [skin] color" on the basis of the black-and-white photograph shown to her by the detective, she nonetheless said that she could comment on "the face." On cross-examination, defense counsel posed questions to her as to whether or not she had told the police that DJ Nelson shot Henry or that she was "80 percent sure that DJ Nelson shot Henry," but Carmen repeatedly replied: "No." (It bears noting that Carmen later acknowledged in her testimony at trial that she once told an investigator named Ralph Gemma and his paralegal that she "believed [DJ Nelson] was involved in the shooting.")

Carmen further testified that, on the night of November 15, 2009 (over a week after the shooting of Henry), she was at the home of her sister, Jacinta, in a housing complex referred to in the record as "Chad Brown." Carmen stated that Jacinta "saw [DJ Nelson] coming out of a SUV with men," which Carmen acknowledged took place outside the Chad Brown complex. She said that, in reaction thereto, the two sisters became "nervous;" she added that, in due course, Jacinta called the police. On direct examination, Carmen acknowledged that she was "afraid" of DJ Nelson due to the fact that, on a prior occasion at Club Platinum, Henry had "said [to her] that somebody had [told him] that they wanted to kill him * * *." Carmen continued summarizing what transpired on that prior occasion as follows: "And then I said[,] ‘Who is it? Show me.’ And * * * Henry said, ‘No. DJ Nelson took him away.’ " She added that her fear on November 15 also stemmed from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Reyes v. State
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Superior Court
    • May 8, 2023
    ...overlook "the growing concern in other jurisdictions" and in scientific studies regarding the "questionable accuracy" of eyewitness accounts. Id. In end, however, the yardstick by which to measure trial counsel's efficiency in Reyes's case is not in the context of recent developments or in ......
  • Jesus Fuentes v. State
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Superior Court
    • October 18, 2021
    ...eyewitness testimony is an issue," id. at 697, it nevertheless later characterized that observation as "aspirational dictum," Fuentes, 162 A.3d at 645 n.12, and reiterated that "Davis did not announce a new rule of law" mandating an identification instruction, but was, instead, a signal to ......
  • State v. Hampton-Boyd
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • June 28, 2021
    ...The defendant timely appealed.Standard of Review"This Court reviews a trial justice's jury instructions de novo." State v. Fuentes , 162 A.3d 638, 644 (R.I. 2017). "In conducting such a review, we must scrutinize ‘the instructions in their entirety to ascertain the manner in which a jury of......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Superior Court
    • February 14, 2023
    ...the jury with more comprehensive instructions when eyewitness testimony is an issue," id. at 697, the following year, in State v. Fuentes, 162 A.3d 638 (R.I. 2017), it characterized that observation as dictum," and reiterated that "Davis did not announce a new rule of law" mandating an iden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT