State v. Brown, 95-648-C
| Decision Date | 05 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-648-C,95-648-C |
| Citation | 690 A.2d 1336 |
| Parties | STATE v. Danny L. BROWN. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on the appeal of the defendant, Danny L. Brown, from a judgment of conviction entered in the Superior Court on three counts of first-degree sexual assault and three counts of first-degree child molestation.
The defendant was sentenced to forty years' imprisonment on each count. Of this term, twenty years were suspended and twenty years' probation was imposed to commence upon defendant's release from the Adult Correctional Institutions. All terms are to be served concurrently.
In support of his appeal defendant raised six issues. Two of the justices were of the opinion that defendant was entitled to a new trial because of prejudicial errors. In the opinion of these justices certain errors outlined below were committed. (The opinions of the justices who disagree are also included.) The issues wherein the court was unanimous in rejecting defendant's contentions are also discussed.
It was claimed that the motion justice committed prejudicial error in declining to allow defendant to subpoena pediatric medical records of the complainant. Two justices believed that even if the request for production of medical records for a ten-year period was overbroad, the motion justice had the obligation to narrow the period and not deny the request out of hand as a "fishing expedition."
Two other justices believed that the request was overbroad and that the hearing justice did not commit prejudicial error in denying it.
All the justices believed that the educational records should have been examined in camera or should have been allowed to have been subpoenaed for the examination of defense counsel. However, the justices were unanimous in the belief that this error was not prejudicial since the evidence in the case clearly indicated that the alleged victim manifested no adverse effects in respect to her grades or her behavior in school.
Two justices were of the opinion that the trial justice committed reversible error in refusing to allow defendant's counsel to cross-examine Pastor Elizabeth Janiak in respect to possible bias relating to an action to enforce a mechanic's lien brought against her church by a relative of defendant. Two other justices were of the opinion that this limitation of cross-examination did not constitute prejudicial error.
Two justices of this court were of the opinion that the trial justice committed prejudicial error when he refused to allow cross-examination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...the panel was evenly divided on the remaining four claims of error. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. State v. Brown, 690 A.2d 1336 (R.I.1997). The defendant immediately moved to reargue his appeal upon the availability of a fifth justice. We granted this request for the......
-
Brown v. State
...has been referred to as "Janiak" and "Janikuak" by this Court in the past. State v. Brown, 709 A.2d 465, 468 (R.I.1998); State v. Brown, 690 A.2d 1336, 1337 (R.I. 1997). The transcripts and the briefs submitted to us refer to her as "Janikuak" and that is the spelling that we will use in th......