State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 15 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-276-C,96-276-C |
| Parties | STATE v. Randy ANDERSON. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Aaron L. Weisman, Annie Goldberg, Providence.
Paula Rosin, Paula Lynch Hardiman, Providence.
This case came before the Supreme Court on December 3, 1997, pursuant to an order directing the state and the defendant to appear and show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided. Randy Anderson, the defendant, appeals from his being adjudicated a probation violator on two separate probationary terms imposed as part of two previous convictions.
After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda filed by counsel for the parties, this Court concludes that cause has not been shown, and the case will be decided at this time.
The complaining victim is the defendant's stepdaughter. The victim, a minor, testified that on three separate occasions, the defendant sexually molested her. After she complained of these incidents, the defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree child molestation. At the time of his arrest, the defendant was on probation as a result of his convictions on both robbery and breaking and entering charges.
The first incident of molestation occurred in February of 1995. During that episode, the defendant allegedly sat on the victim's lap, hugged her, and made unwelcome remarks concerning her appearance. The victim complained of this troubling incident to her parents. In response to her complaints, the victim's parents and the defendant agreed that he would no longer be allowed to spend time alone with the victim.
The second alleged incident occurred the following month in March of 1995. The victim had gone to the defendant's home with her young boyfriend. The defendant asked the boyfriend to leave, but requested the victim remain in the home with him. According to the victim, the defendant then forced her to perform oral sex on him against her will.
The third incident also took place in March of 1995. The defendant on that occasion drove the victim to Oaklawn Beach in Warwick Rhode Island and parked the car. The defendant then kissed her and put his hand down into her pants. During the assault, the defendant allegedly digitally penetrated the victim several times.
Due to her fear of the defendant, the victim did not inform her parents about the second and third incidents until the following month. Following consultation with her parents, the victim went to the police and filed an official complaint against the defendant.
Following a three day hearing during which the victim testified to all three incidents of sexual molestation, the trial justice found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probations on both the robbery and breaking and entering conviction sentences. Accordingly, the trial justice reinstated, concurrently, the remainder of the sentences imposed on each conviction.
The defendant now appeals claiming that the trial justice acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding him to be a violator. Specifically, the defendant challenges the trial justice's finding that the state had proved a violation to a "reasonable degree of satisfaction," the trial justice's reliance upon stricken testimony, the trial justice's restriction of the cross-examination of the complaining victim, the trial justice's refusal to allow the subpoena of police records regarding a break-in of the victim's father's apartment, and the trial justice's ruling to curtail testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hazard
...justice that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the previously imposed probation.” Id. (quoting State v. Anderson, 705 A.2d 996, 997 (R.I.1997) (mem.)). “The ‘reasonable satisfaction’ standard should not be employed to determine the question of defendant's guilt in regar......
-
State v. Hazard
...justice that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the previously imposed probation." Id. (quoting State v. Anderson, 705 A.2d 996, 997 (R.I. 1997) (mem.)). "The 'reasonable satisfaction' standard should not be employed to determine the question of defendant's guilt in rega......
-
Anderson v. State
...After that hearing, Anderson was found to be a violator of his probation, which adjudication was upheld by this Court in State v. Anderson, 705 A.2d 996 (R.I.1997) (mem.). In October 1998, following a Superior Court jury trial on the underlying first-degree child molestation charges, Anders......
-
State v. Pona
...hearing justice that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the previously imposed probation.”) (quoting State v. Anderson, 705 A.2d 996, 997 (R.I.1997) (mem.)). We perceive no error in the hearing justice's performance of his function when he adjudicated defendant a probati......