State v. Price (In re Price)
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | William P. Robinson III |
| Decision Date | 01 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010-262-M.P.,No. 2010-70-C.A.,W2/08-389A,KM 09-1413,2010-70-C.A.,2010-262-M.P. |
| Citation | State v. Price (In re Price), KM 09-1413, No. 2010-262-M.P., No. 2010-70-C.A. (R.I. May 01, 2013) |
| Parties | State v. Anderson Price. In re Anderson Price. |
State
v.
Anderson Price.
In re Anderson Price.
No. 2010-70-C.A.
(W2/08-389A)
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
Justice Robinson, for the Court. This case is before the Court on the defendant's appeal from a judgment of conviction on one count of child enticement in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-26-1.5, which appeal has been consolidated with this Court's grant of the defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of his having been adjudicated in contempt as a result of certain in-court conduct. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) that the trial justice erred in denying his first motion for a new trial—which motion, according to the defendant, contended that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on the count of child enticement; (2) that the trial justice erred in denying his second motion for a new trial, which wasbased on a claim of newly discovered evidence; and (3) that the trial justice erred in adjudicating him in contempt of court.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of conviction as well as the adjudication of contempt.
On October 30, 2008, the Attorney General charged defendant by way of a criminal information with one count of second degree sexual assault in violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 11-37-4 and 11-37-5 (count 1) and one count of attempting to persuade a minor child "to enter a vehicle with intent to engage in lewd, illicit or criminal conduct" in violation of § 11-26-1.5 (count 2).1 The charges stemmed from an incident that occurred in North Kingstown on September 3, 2008.
The defendant's trial commenced on June 10, 2009, and the state presented the testimony of six witnesses: (1) James Leeds, a passenger in defendant's vehicle at the time of theSeptember 3, 2008 incident; (2) Suzanne,2 the complaining witness; (3) Dawn, a friend of the complaining witness; (4) Diane, the sister of Dawn; (5) James Bardin, the second passenger in defendant's vehicle; and (6) Officer Eli Mulligan of the North Kingstown Police Department. The defendant did not introduce any testimony or other evidence. We summarize below the pertinent evidence presented at trial.
James Leeds testified that he spent between two and two-and-a-half months in Rhode Island during the early Fall of 2008. He further testified that he knew defendant because they worked together. Mr. Leeds stated that defendant transported him to and from work, and he also stated that they "hung out somewhat after hours."
Mr. Leeds testified that, on September 3, 2008, he and defendant were together after work when, at some point, "probably between seven and eight p.m.," he and defendant and another person whom Mr. Leeds referred to as "Wade"4 went for a ride in defendant's green van. Mr. Leeds further explained that he was in the passenger seat and defendant was driving the vehicle, while Mr. Bardin was seated behind them. He stated that the van pulled into a parking area of an apartment complex so that Mr. Bardin could carry out an errand.
It was Mr. Leeds's testimony that, once Mr. Bardin returned, the van moved to what was referred to as "the roadway area," at which point defendant "stuck his head out the window" to speak to a person whom Mr. Leeds referred to in his testimony as a "young lady." He stated that the young lady was "carrying things from her vehicle to the inside of her apartment." Mr. Leeds further testified that defendant "asked the young lady if she had an old man." Mr. Leeds stated that the young lady replied "no" to defendant, who then "put the van in park and got out of the van and walked over to her." Mr. Leeds further testified that defendant put his arm around the young lady for what he estimated to be forty-five seconds to a minute.
Mr. Leeds qualified his testimony by explaining that he had not been "watching every move" and by also explaining that he had been discussing "work-related issues" with Mr. Bardin. In response to a question from the prosecutor, Mr. Leeds testified that, although he was not watching the entire time, he did not see defendant grab the breast of the complaining witness or pull her towards the van. He stated that he heard defendant tell her that he was from Louisiana and that he had an ATM card and that he would "be back." Mr. Leeds testified that, following these exchanges, he was able to get defendant's attention by rolling down a window in the van and saying that they "need[ed] to go," at which point the three men left the parking lot.
The complaining witness, Suzanne, testified that she was sixteen years old at the time of trial and had been fifteen years old at the time of the incident at issue. Suzanne testified that, on September 3, 2008, at around 8 p.m., she went to her mother's van in order to bring some laundry into their apartment.
Suzanne testified as to her recollection that a green minivan bearing a Maine license plate drove past her and that the driver spoke to her. When the prosecutor asked her to describe what the driver said to her, Suzanne replied that the driver had said in a loud voice: "Hey, baby." She added, however, that she was not sure whether that salutation was directed towards her and her two friends.
Suzanne further testified that, after the driver had uttered those words, "he just drove by and then he came back"; she added that he proceeded to "[get] out of the driver's seat." When asked if she recalled hearing anyone say anything from inside the van, she replied that, before the driver stepped out of the van, "the passenger guy told him not to get out of the car." The prosecutor asked Suzanne if the driver said anything else to her, and she replied that he asked her whether she had "a daddy or a boyfriend."
When asked by the prosecutor what the driver did after he exited the van, Suzanne responded that he walked directly to her, not to the two friends who were with her (Dawn and Diane). Suzanne testified that the driver did not say anything else at that point; she added, however, that he put his right arm around her and grabbed her right breast. She stated that he was whispering that he was from New Orleans and that he had an ATM card which he could give to her; she testified that, as he was saying those things, he was "touching" or "grabbing" her breast and that he "moved it around." She explained that she did not say anything to him because she was "scared of what was going to happen next"; however, later in the trial, she acknowledged that, when defendant approached her and spoke to her, she told him that she had a boyfriend and that he was "in the house." Suzanne testified that the next thing she recalled happening was the driver pulling her towards the van; she added that the top half of her body moved, although her legs "stayed."
Suzanne testified that, when she first tried to free herself from the driver's grasp, he pulled her more towards the van. She also testified that she "shook [her] body away from him" in an attempt to remove his arm. She further testified that, after he let go, he said "okay, okay" and went back to the van. She explained that she was within feet of the van and that only the driver's side door (which was facing her) was open. Suzanne added that, as the driver was returning to the van, he said that he was going to come back with his ATM card. She stated that her friends then told her to go inside to tell her mother and to call the police.
Suzanne further explained that ten minutes elapsed between the first time she heard defendant say something to her and the moment he departed in the van. She acknowledged that defendant had been touching her breast for three minutes. She additionally testified that she and her two friends were "together" during the entirety of defendant's interaction with her. Suzanne also described how, later in the evening of September 3, 2008, she identified defendant to the police. Suzanne also made an in-court identification of defendant as being the "person that did this to [her]."
The prosecutor also introduced into evidence the audio recording of the 9-1-1 call that the complaining witness and her mother made with respect to the September 3, 2008 incident as well as a transcript of what was said during that call. During the call, Suzanne was asked whether "they grabb[ed] any of you." Suzanne responded: "No, they, he tried to grab me, but I was like, sir, you need to, like back up and get in your car right now * * *."
When the prosecutor questioned Suzanne about what she meant when she said "tried to," she admitted that she had been "lying to the police officer"; she indicated that her reason for "lying" was that she had not wanted to call the police or tell anyone about the incident because she was embarrassed. Under cross-examination by defense counsel, Suzanne agreed that shewould sometimes lie in order to avoid being embarrassed. She further admitted that she had lied in the past (including to the police and the 9-1-1 operator) in order to avoid embarrassment. She also agreed that the reason the police were called was because "some guy tried to pick [her] up." When asked, Suzanne admitted that she never mentioned to the police that the man actually grabbed her or pulled her towards the van. She also admitted that neither did she tell her mother any of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting