State v. McDowell
| Decision Date | 17 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-161-C,92-161-C |
| Citation | 620 A.2d 94 |
| Parties | STATE v. Thomas McDOWELL. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
On April 17, 1991, a Kent County jury convicted the defendant, Thomas McDowell, on five counts of sexual assault. The trial justice denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and sentenced the defendant to thirty years in prison with twelve years to serve. The defendant appealed to this court, and a single justice of this court, pursuant to provisional order No. 16 of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, ordered the state to appear and show cause why this court should not summarily sustain the defendant's appeal. After hearing the arguments and reading the memoranda of counsel, we believe the state has failed to show cause.
On this appeal we address two errors committed by the trial justice. The first error concerns the trial justice's admission of the testimony of Megan Pierce (Pierce). At trial the state argued that defendant had committed sexual assault upon five teenaged girls, all of whom provided babysitting services to defendant and defendant's family. Each of the five alleged victims testified against defendant at trial.
The prosecutor, however, also sought to introduce the testimony of Pierce, who was not one of the five young women named in the information filed against defendant. The prosecution made an offer of proof stating that Pierce would testify that she had been a babysitter for defendant and his family and that defendant had made sexual advances toward her.
The prosecution attempted to admit Pierce's testimony pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, which allows the admission of evidence concerning "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" in certain enumerated instances. In State v. Jalette, 119 R.I. 614, 627, 382 A.2d 526, 533 (1978), this court held that a trial justice should not admit Rule 404(b) evidence of other sexual assaults unless the trial justice concludes that this evidence is absolutely necessary. The trial justice correctly ruled that Pierce's testimony was not absolutely necessary and barred the prosecution from introducing her testimony at trial.
After the close of the prosecution's case, defense counsel then called defendant to the stand and conducted a full direct examination. At no point during direct examination did defense counsel ask defendant about any encounters with Pierce. On cross-examination, however, the prosecution over defense counsel's objection, questioned defendant about whether he had sexually assaulted or directed sexually inappropriate comments toward Pierce. The defendant denied these accusations. Over objection the trial justice then allowed the prosecution to call Pierce as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kholi
...question failed to meet the mistrial standard embodied in Brown. Nor are we persuaded by defendant's argument that State v. McDowell, 620 A.2d 94 (R.I.1993), requires reversal of defendant's convictions. In McDowell this court held that the admission of other crimes through the rebuttal tes......
-
State v. Cavanaugh, K1/14-79A
...would naturally and probably be drawn from such testimony." State v. Filuminia , 668 A.2d 336, 338 (R.I. 1995) (citing State v. McDowell , 620 A.2d 94 (R.I. 1993) ). The defendant was questioned on direct examination about his home on Washington Street in Warwick; it was defendant's content......
-
State v. Rosario
...In support of his argument, defendant cites this Court's holdings in State v. O'Dell, 576 A.2d 425 (R.I.1990), and State v. McDowell, 620 A.2d 94 (R.I.1993). In O'Dell, 576 A.2d at 429, the defendant in a sexual assault trial was cross-examined as to conversations that he had with the alleg......
-
State v. Mercurio
...this rule concerning the prosecution manufacturing an issue during cross-examination in the context of Rule 404(b) in State v. McDowell, 620 A.2d 94, 95–96 (R.I.1993). 6. In phrasing the question thusly, we note that the prosecutor had essentially “painted defendant into a corner” where the......