State v. Gonzalez
Citation | 136 A.3d 1131 |
Decision Date | 29 March 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 2013–289–C.A.,2013–289–C.A. |
Parties | STATE v. Tony GONZALEZ. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Virginia M. McGinn, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Lara E. Montecalvo, Office of the Public Defender, for Defendant.
Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.
The defendant, Tony Gonzalez, appeals from his conviction following a jury trial in Kent County Superior Court. The defendant was convicted of one count of murder in the first degree, in violation of G.L.1956 § 11–23–1 ; one count of assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of G.L.1956 § 11–5–1 ; one count of “discharg[ing] a firearm while committing a crime of violence, to wit, murder, resulting in the death of Carl Cunningham, Jr.,” in violation of G.L.1956 § 11–47–3.2 ; and one count of “discharg[ing] a firearm while committing a crime of violence, to wit, assault with intent to commit murder,” in violation of § 11–47–3.2. On appeal, Mr. Gonzalez contends that the trial justice erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress certain evidence that was obtained as a result of his warrantless arrest in his home. He specifically posits that “neither exigent circumstances nor consent justified the failure of [the] * * * police to obtain a warrant * * *.” Mr. Gonzalez also argues on appeal that the trial justice erred in failing to “remove two biased jurors” from the jury or, in the alternative, grant a mistrial.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand the case for a new trial.
On May 22, 2012, a Kent County grand jury indicted Mr. Gonzalez on the aforementioned four charges: one count of first-degree murder; one count of assault with an intent to commit murder; one count of discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence, to wit, murder; and one count of discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence, to wit, assault with an intent to commit murder. The charges against defendant arose out of a shooting which caused the death of Carl Cunningham, Jr. In order to provide some preliminary orientation with respect to the factual and legal matters that are addressed in the following pages, we begin by simply noting that it is undisputed that Mr. Cunningham was shot to death in January of 2012 in a home on Nausaucket Road in Warwick, Rhode Island, and that Patricia Dalomba and Matthew Chivers were also present in that home at the time of the shooting.1 The police quickly had ample reason to suspect that defendant, Tony Gonzalez, was the person who had shot Mr. Cunningham.
Immediately preceding the start of defendant's jury trial, a hearing was held regarding defendant's motion to suppress. On appeal, he alleges that the following should have been suppressed: (1) his statement regarding the location of the gun which the police were asking him about during the course of his arrest; and (2) certain evidence derived from the search of his residence following his arrest.2 We relate below, in pertinent part, what occurred at the motion to suppress hearing.
The basis of defendant's motion to suppress was his contention that his arrest was unlawful because the police did not have a warrant to enter his home and arrest him. The parties do not dispute the fact that the police did not have either an arrest warrant or a search warrant when they entered defendant's home and arrested him.
Detective Thomas Digregorio testified that he was employed by the Warwick Police Department on the date in question. He stated that his involvement with the instant case began when he was “called in on the investigation” in the early morning hours of January 22, 2012. He further testified that, shortly after being called in, he and Det. Timothy Grant interviewed Matthew Chivers, who was present during the shooting of Carl Cunningham, Jr., which shooting had occurred around midnight. The following is the information which Det. Digregorio stated was provided by Mr. Chivers:
Detective Digregorio went on to state that the investigation quickly revealed that Tony Gonzalez had entered Ms. Dalomba's house and fired several shots, striking Mr. Cunningham, who happened to be in the house along with Mr. Chivers and Ms. Dalomba. Mr. Cunningham was killed as a result of the shooting.
It was Det. Digregorio's testimony that he and Det. Grant “went to a couple of locations in Providence in order to try to locate the defendant because he was on the run at that point and [they] were afraid of destruction of evidence, but also [they] were afraid that given the fact that he was armed and dangerous, that he might be a threat to others * * *.” He proceeded to state that, when defendant was eventually located at his home in Providence, he and Det. Grant met up with Providence police officers and other detectives from the Warwick Police Department at Providence Police Substation 7, from which location the group of law enforcement officers all proceeded to defendant's apartment. Detective Digregorio then testified that, after defendant's arrest in his apartment, defendant's mother, Cira Gonzalez, gave written consent to a search of the apartment at 8:10 a.m. on January 22, 2012; he added that she was calm at the time she gave consent.
On cross-examination, Det. Digregorio was specifically asked why the police did not obtain an arrest warrant to arrest Mr. Gonzalez and he replied:
Detective Timothy Grant was a detective in the Warwick Police Department on January 22, 2012. Detective Grant testified that, “shortly after one o'clock in the morning” on that date, he was “advised to come back to work to assist * * * in a homicide investigation.” According to his testimony, it had been shortly after midnight that the Warwick Police Department “got the call” about the homicide. Detective Grant then testified that, when he arrived at the station, he was told that a man named “Tony Gonzalez” had “shot and killed an individual named Carl Cunningham.” Detective Grant stated that, later that morning, he and Det. Digregorio were following some leads in Providence when they received a phone call from Detective Sergeant LeBlanc “indicating that the Defendant may be at his mother's address [ (where defendant was also living) ] in the Chad Brown housing complex” in Providence. According to Det. Grant, Det. Sgt. LeBlanc indicated that he had come by that information “through a controlled phone call with the Defendant's brother,” Juan Zachary Garcia.3
It was the further testimony of Det. Grant that he and Det. Digregorio arrived at Providence Police Substation 7 “shortly before 7:00 a.m.” on January 22. He added that they “waited for additional Warwick personnel to arrive * * * ” He next testified that Warwick and Providence officers subsequently “took a caravan”4 to 48 June Street, Apartment J in Providence—defendant's mother's apartment, where defendant was living; Det. Grant added that the officers set up a perimeter around the apartment.
It was subsequently Det. Grant's testimony that, before the police set up the perimeter, they had received information from defendant's brother that defendant “typically [slept] with a handgun under his pillow.” From Det. Grant's perspective, that fact created a “huge officer safety issue;” he added that the police had additional concerns about officer safety due to the nature of the crime that defendant was suspected of having committed. Moreover, Det. Grant stated that the police were concerned about the destruction of evidence, and he also said that they had been told, by the mother of Patricia Dalomba, that in the latter's conversations with defendant he had acknowledged that he owned a firearm, carried a firearm, and liked to shoot at the range.
Detective Grant's testimony then returned to the arrest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Terzian
...of the record in order to independently determine whether the rights of the accused have been violated. Id. ; see also State v. Gonzalez , 136 A.3d 1131, 1145 (R.I. 2016) ("[W]hen this Court reviews ‘an alleged violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, this Court must make an indepe......
-
Day v. State
...exigent circumstances.Olson, 495 U.S. at 100-01, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 1690 (emphasis added). Day also urges us to consider Rhode Island v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131 (R.I. 2016), which he argues is a "remarkably similar" case supporting his contention that police should have waited for the warrant......
-
State v. Terzian
...of the record in order to independently determine whether the rights of the accused have been violated. Id.; see also State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131, 1145 (R.I. 2016) ("[W]hen this Court reviews 'an alleged violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, this Court must make an independ......
-
State v. Roscoe
...an advocate's zeal, they are, in my view, nonetheless so serious as to form the basis for requiring a new trial.2 See State v. Gonzalez , 136 A.3d 1131, 1156-57 (R.I. 2016).3 I wish to be entirely clear. After considerable reflection, I have concluded that the Confrontation Clause issue and......
-
Searches of the home
...search for a homicide suspect, asked the defendant’s mother where he was, and she responded by looking up the stairs. State v. Gonzalez , 136 A.3d 1131 (R.I. 2016). The federal test for consent does not require a court to consider whether a law enforcement officer has authority under state ......
-
Searches of the home
...for a homicide sus-pect, asked the defendant’s mother where he was, and she responded by looking up the stairs. State v. Gonzalez , 136 A.3d 1131 (R.I. 2016). The federal test for consent does not require a court to consider whether a law enforcement oficer has authority under state law to ......
-
Searches of the Home
...search for a homicide suspect, asked the defendant’s mother where he was, and she responded by looking up the stairs. State v. Gonzalez , 136 A.3d 1131 (R.I. 2016). The federal test for consent does not require a court to consider whether a law enforcement o൶cer has authority under state la......