State v. LaChappelle, 79-34-C

• Decision Date: 16 January 1981
• Docket Number: No. 79-34-C,79-34-C
• Citation: 424 A.2d 1039
• Parties: STATE v. Francis E. LaCHAPPELLE. A.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 1039

424 A.2d 1039

STATE v. Francis E. LaCHAPPELLE.

No. 79-34-C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 16, 1981.

Dennis J. Roberts II, Atty. Gen., Melanie W. Spencer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

William F. Reilly, Public Defender, J. Ryder Kenney, Asst. Public Defender, for defendant.

OPINION

MURRAY, Justice.

The defendant, Francis E. LaChappelle (LaChappelle), was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of assault with intent to commit rape ¹ and was sentenced to twenty years at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). ² The case is now before us on the defendant's appeal in which he seeks to reverse his conviction on the grounds that the trial justice's in-chambers conference with the prosecution's chief witness during a recess in the trial, without the defendant or his counsel present, violated his rights under provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions and the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reject the defendant's arguments and affirm the judgment of conviction below.

With reference to LaChappelle's claims, the record discloses the following material facts. The defendant's trial was commenced on February 2, 1978, before a justice of the Superior Court sitting with a jury. The prosecution's chief witness against defendant was the complainant, the sixteen-year-old daughter of defendant and the victim of the alleged assault. The substance of her testimony concerning the incident can be briefly summarized.

The complainant's mother and defendant were divorced. The complainant lived with her mother and brother in Providence, but during the summer of 1977 she and her brother spent the month of June with defendant and his wife at their home in Carolina, Rhode Island. On the evening of June 28 the complainant accompanied defendant and his brother-in-law, Eugene G. Peabody, in defendant's automobile while he drove Peabody to his home in nearby Shannock, Rhode Island. She testified that they left defendant's house at approximately 11:30 p. m.

On the return trip to Carolina, LaChappelle drove his car behind the VFW Post building located also in Shannock. The complainant recounted that defendant said he wanted to talk to her, took off his glasses, and began unbuttoning her blouse. When she began to cry, he stopped and got out of the car. LaChappelle told her that she had better have taken her pants off by the time he returned.

The defendant returned to the car a few moments later, and he began again to undress the complainant. When she resisted his efforts by kicking and screaming, LaChappelle held her hands and slapped her face several times.

According to the complainant, after defendant removed her clothing, he forced her legs open and then climbed on top of her. She said that defendant put his hands and fingers over the area of her vagina and "put his penis on (her) vagina." She testified also that defendant "kept trying to put his penis in (her) vagina." The defendant continued to rub his penis on the entrance to her vagina until "he reached an orgasm." The complainant said defendant then took a napkin out of his shirt pocket and "he wiped me up and everything."

The rest of the complainant's testimony concerned details of events that occurred later that evening when she and defendant arrived home and those which led to her eventual reporting of the incident to the Rhode Island State Police.

In the course of cross-examination defendant's counsel asked the complainant what she meant when she had used the terms "orgasm" on direct examination and "climax" in her statements to the State Police concerning the incident. Although the complainant said that the terms were her own words and told the court she knew what the words meant, she remained silent when she was pressed for an explanation of their meaning.

After a brief bench conference the defendant's counsel withdrew the question and moved on to several other lines of questioning. Several minutes later defense counsel returned to the question. When the complainant continued to remain silent the trial justice instructed counsel to move on to another area. Several questions later defense counsel returned a third time to the question of her understanding of the terms "orgasm" and "climax." When she again remained silent, the jury was taken out and the trial justice instructed the witness that because she testified in answer to questions on direct examination by the prosecutor, she was under an obligation to answer the questions of defendant's counsel on cross-examination.

The trial justice suggested that the witness be excused for ten minutes "to pull (her) thoughts together," whereupon the sheriff escorted the witness to the library. In the interim the trial justice reserved consideration of defendant's motion to strike the testimony of the witness in the event she refused to testify adequately on cross-examination.

The witness returned to the stand in the absence of the jury and was asked by the trial justice whether she intended to answer defendant's counsel's question before the jury. He again instructed her that her failure to answer the questions would result in the charges against defendant being dismissed. The trial justice asked the witness if she wished to confer with him alone. Over the objections of defendant, the trial justice took a short recess and adjourned with the complainant to his chambers. Neither defendant nor his counsel, however, requested to be present at the conference in chambers.

In chambers, the following colloquy took place between the trial justice and the witness, with only the stenographer present and recording:

"THE COURT: (The complainant) again I have to ask you whether or not you will respond or answer the question that was offered by the attorney for Mr. LaChappelle. (pause) You have indicated you do not wish to answer; is that correct?

"THE WITNESS: No, I will tell you.

"THE COURT: If you would.

"THE WITNESS: I meant what I meant was that he, um,

"THE COURT: Go ahead. It's not going any further than the three of us.

"THE WITNESS: What I meant was that he (pause)

"THE COURT: Go ahead.

"THE WITNESS: He (pause)

"THE WITNESS: He (pause)

"THE COURT: Ejaculated?

"THE WITNESS: I was thinking of come'd.

"THE COURT: Okay. No problem. That is a very common word that all people use including adults. That is nothing. That is your only concern?

"THE WITNESS: Please?

"THE COURT: That is your only concern? That is the only reason why you were reluctant to answer the question?

"THE WITNESS: Yes.

"THE COURT: It's certainly a word that I am sure every member of the Jury, the attorneys and the Court have used, so there is nothing to be embarrassed about.

(The complainant) you leave the Court no alternative if you do not answer the question but to dismiss this case.

"THE WITNESS: I just said it.

"THE COURT: It has to be said in front of the Jury. I did not know what your real concern was. If it's simply because you might be embarrassed by using that word or terminology, that is certainly not sufficient reason.

"They're all adults, and we only have another five minutes to go today. Once you testify, I will resume the hearing tomorrow. Then you will have sufficient opportunity to discuss your testimony, if necessary, with your attorney, Mr. Renaldo. But we have to have a response.

"THE WITNESS: Can I just tell the Jury?

"THE COURT: Tell the Jury what?

"THE WITNESS: What I just told you.

"THE COURT: Certainly.

"THE WITNESS: Just the Jury?

"THE COURT: All the attorneys and the defendant have to be present. That is the law. And if that is what happened, you certainly have the right to express that.

"You see, this is a very difficult situation. I am sure it is very difficult for you, but you must recognize that if Mr. LaChappelle is found guilty, he could spend the rest of his life in jail and it all comes down to your testimony, and the Jury has the right to know everything about you about your testimony they have that right. If you were on trial for something, you have the right to have the Jury know everything about what happened. So I am sure if we go out there and you just make that response to the Jury, they will understand what you mean. They are all adults, as the Court, and you are a young adult now.

"THE WITNESS: Is that the last question?

"THE COURT: That should be the last question from the defendant, yes.

"THE WITNESS: I don't know if I can.

"THE COURT: Well, I certainly (cannot) force you to say it and I don't intend to, because the Court's responsibility is to both you and to the defendant to see that he gets a fair trial and we're looking for justice, and a lot depends upon your testimony. If you fail to testify if you fail to give that answer or give an answer, then you leave the Court no alternative but to dismiss the case.

"I am going to call the Jury up now, and it's 4:23 p. m. and we're supposed to be out of here at 4:30. The prosecutor will or the defendant will ask the question one more time. If you care to answer, you just answer as you have answered me if that is the truth, and that's it.

"THE WITNESS: Then I just go home, right?

"THE COURT: You will have to come back tomorrow to be examined by Mr. Renaldo. By Mr. Renaldo.

"THE WITNESS: Right.

"THE COURT: If that is the truth and you wish to testify, then the Jury has the right to hear that. If you don't wish to testify, I will have to dismiss the case. Do you understand?

"THE WITNESS: Yes.

"THE COURT: Okay. I will have the Jury brought up.

"You can step outside. One second, I will have the sheriff accompany you one second, if you will."

Following the conference in chambers, the witness returned to the stand and in the presence of the jury testified that she had "meant he come'd (sic)" when she had previously used the words "orgasm" and "climax" in her testimony. The trial justice then denied defendant's motion to strike the complainant's testimony. The defendant continued his...