State v. Alston

• Decision Date: 22 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2009–83–C.A.,2009–83–C.A.
• Citation: 47 A.3d 234
• Parties: STATE v. Jeffrey ALSTON, alias John Doe.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

47 A.3d 234

STATE

v.Jeffrey ALSTON, alias John Doe.

No. 2009–83–C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 22, 2012.

Christopher R. Bush, Department of Attorney General, for State.

Susan Iannitelli, Esq., for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Chief Justice SUTTELL, for the Court.

The defendant, Jeffrey Alston,¹ appeals from a judgment of conviction for conspiracy to break and enter, breaking and entering of a dwelling, and assault with a dangerous weapon. He also appeals from the denial of his motions for a new trial. On appeal, the defendant contends that his right to confrontation under the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions was violated by the evidentiary rulings of the trial justice, that his right to cross-examine one of the state's witnesses was unduly restricted, and that the trial justice erred in refusing to pass the case. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Procedural History

On April 8, 2002, defendant was charged by criminal information with the following crimes: (1) conspiracy to break and enter in violation of G.L.1956 § 11–1–6; (2) breaking and entering a dwelling without the consent of the owner in violation of G.L.1956 § 11–8–2; (3) assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of G.L.1956 § 11–5–2; (4) assault and battery resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of § 11–5–2; and (5) driving a vehicle without the consent of the owner in violation of G.L.1956 § 31–9–1 and G.L.1956 § 31–27–9.² A trial commenced, and, on July 9, 2003, a jury found defendant guilty of the first four counts. The trial justice sentenced defendant to ten years at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) on the conspiracy charge, with five years to serve and five years suspended, with probation; fifteen years at the ACI on the breaking-and-entering charge, with five years to serve and ten years suspended, with probation; and ten years at the ACI on the assault charge, with seven years to serve and three years suspended, with probation. All sentences were to run consecutively. The defendant appealed to this Court, which resulted in the judgment of conviction being vacated and the case being remanded for a new trial. See State v. Alston, 900 A.2d 1212, 1221 (R.I.2006).

The defendant's second trial was held in April 2008, but only on the charges of conspiracy to break and enter, breaking and entering, and assault with a dangerous weapon. The trial record reveals the following facts. On July 3, 2001, at approximately 9 p.m., Dennis and Suzanne Laven returned to their house in the City of Warwick after an evening of shopping and became suspicious of a car parked on the side of the road approximately twenty feet from their driveway. Upon approaching the house, Mr. Laven noticed that the front door was open and that a kitchen light was on, which, he testified, was not the case when the couple had left their home earlier. Mr. Laven then saw two men “running out the sliding doors of the kitchen to the backyard.” He yelled to his wife to call the police and then ran around the side of the house to “try to catch the people.” Mrs. Laven testified that she turned on the floodlights and then called 911 to report the break-in.

Mr. Laven testified that although his backyard was “pitch black,” he could hear rustling noises coming from the woods, so he ran back to the vehicle parked near the bottom of his driveway. Upon reaching the vehicle, Mr. Laven noticed that the keys had been left in the ignition, so he took them and stood in the middle of the road in anticipation that the two men would return. ³ Mr. Laven testified that “[a]fter a few minutes,” he heard more rustling noises and saw the two men come out of the woods, whereupon he called out to them that he “had the keys and the police were on their way.” According to Mr. Laven, the “larger of the two men rushed at” him, saying that “he had a knife [and that] he was going to cut [Mr. Laven] open.” ⁴ In response, Mr. Laven threw the keys into the woods and a “street fight” ⁵ ensued. The second man also “came running and gave [Mr. Laven] something similar to a cross check to [his] body and hit [him] in the head with * * * a forearm or a fist.” Mr. Laven testified that he was knocked down so fast that he did not have enough time to break the fall and, in turn, hit his head against the ground. He further testified that, while he was on the ground, the two men continued to kick his sides.

Mr. Laven testified that, at some point, the two men retreated from the fight, went back to the car parked on the street, and “seemed to be looking for the keys.” The next thing that Mr. Laven could recall was that the taller man returned and started fighting with him again. The man, however, again withdrew, threatening that “he was going to shoot [Mrs. Laven].” Mr. Laven then yelled out that he would help look for the keys because he “was afraid for [his] wife.” When that same man approached Mrs. Laven, she testified that she gave him her own set of car keys, and he returned to the parked car. According to Mr. Laven, both men “seemed to be scrambling [to try] to get the keys in the car,” but he added that it was not long before they “realize[d that] they were not the keys to [their] car.” At that point, the Lavens' neighbors drove up their own driveway, causing the two men to flee into the woods.

When asked at trial to describe the two men, Mr. Laven testified that the first man to approach him was “dark skinned,” between five-foot-eleven inches and six-foot-two inches tall, approximately 220 pounds, and had been wearing “bulky” clothing and a “toque,” which Mr. Laven described as “a ski cap.” ⁶ Mr. Laven described the second man as “dark skinned” and between five-foot-ten inches to five-foot-eleveninches tall.⁷ The Lavens, however, were unable to affirmatively identify anyone from a photo array of possible suspects, and they also could not positively identify defendant as one of their two assailants at the trial.

Daniel Gillis, a detective in the Warwick Police Department, testified that on July 3, 2001, he received a telephone call to investigate the crime scene at the Lavens' home. Detective Gillis testified that, upon responding, he conducted a search of the abandoned vehicle, which produced, among other things, a cellular telephone, a cellular-telephone charger, an Alamo car rental agreement, and a black wallet holding some money, credit cards, and defendant's Rhode Island driver's license. The keys that Mr. Laven had thrown into the woods also were located. According to Det. Gillis, the keys were later “matched up to” the abandoned vehicle.

Amy Smith, a friend of defendant's, testified that in June 2001, defendant had called her and asked her to rent a car for him, claiming that he did not have a credit card to do so himself. Smith stated that she agreed to defendant's request.⁸ On June 25, 2001, she met defendant at Alamo, a car rental company, and cosigned the paperwork but left before defendant took possession of the rental car. According to Smith, the next time that she heard from defendant was on July 4, 2001, at approximately 5:45 a.m., when defendant called her and told her that the rental car had been stolen. During this call, Smith testified, defendant informed her that he had attempted to report the theft, but that she needed to call Alamo because “the authorized renter had to call.”

When Smith called Alamo, she was informed that the rented vehicle was then at the Warwick police station. Smith testified that when she went to the police station to get a release for the car, she learned that the car was involved in a continuing investigation for a break-in. According to Smith, when she spoke with defendant that same evening, he asked her what had happened when she called the car rental company. She testified that she told defendant that the car had been involved in a break-in, and that defendant then stated, “Okay. I got to go.”

Walter Williams, a civilian criminalist in the Warwick Police Department and an expert in fingerprint detection, analysis, and comparison, testified that he was able to develop fingerprints from the vehicle that had been abandoned at the Lavens' house and that some of the fingerprints matched those of defendant. Williams additionally testified that he also was able to match a palm impression taken from the vehicle to that of a man named Jerry Coleman. ⁹ He was not, however, able to tell when the prints had been imported to the vehicle, agreeing that it was possible that one set of the prints “may have been placed for a relatively longer period of time or remained on [the] vehicle a relatively longer period of time than the other.”

William Harrell,¹⁰ who described defendant as being “like a brother” to him, testified that on July 4, 2001, he saw a news bulletin about a break-in at a house in Warwick. According to Harrell, this news bulletin caught his eye because he recognized the vehicle that was featured as the car he had seen defendant driving the day before. Harrell testified that approximately twenty minutes after he saw the news bulletin, defendant arrived at his house with Coleman.

According to Harrell, when he asked defendant how he got away with the break-in, defendant “started to tell [him] about the night prior and the * * * [break-in] and what happened, how it happened[,] and how he ended up getting away.” Harrell testified that defendant told him that he and Coleman went to a house in Warwick “to burglarize it.” According to Harrell, defendant also told him how they had “left the car running in the driveway” while they broke into the house, “left the door to the house ajar[ ]” because they were “taking things out,” how the homeowners returned and “took the keys out of the car,” and how defendant attempted to get the keys back from the homeowner by “beat [ing] him * * * up.”

Harrell also testified...