State v. Rivera

• Decision Date: 15 April 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-69-C,93-69-C
• Citation: 640 A.2d 524
• Parties: STATE v. Edwin RIVERA. A.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 524

640 A.2d 524

STATE v. Edwin RIVERA.

No. 93-69-C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 15, 1994.

Jeffrey Pine, Atty. Gen., Jane McSoley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Aaron Weisman, Chief, Appellate Div., for plaintiff.

Richard Casparian, Public Defender, Paula Rosin, Paula Lynch Hardiman, Asst. Public Defenders, for defendant.

OPINION

SHEA, Justice.

This matter is before the Supreme Court on the defendant's appeal from his conviction of murder in the first degree, for which he received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. We affirm.

The defendant, Edwin Rivera, was charged by criminal indictment No. P1/91-2942A on one count of first-degree murder. He was convicted after a jury trial and moved for a new trial. The motion for new trial was denied, and defendant then filed this appeal.

The defendant first asserts that the trial court erroneously admitted an unduly inflammatory photograph of the victim. He also argues that the trial court erred by failing to pass the case after a police officer testified about a statement made by defendant at the time of his arrest. The statement was not disclosed to defendant pursuant to Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.

At trial the state's expert in forensic pathology testified that he had performed the autopsy of the victim. He found that the cause of death was a single stab wound that had penetrated the heart. His examination of the victim's body also revealed a neatly sutured seven-inch thoracotomy incision, evidence of resuscitative measures taken by emergency medical personnel. During the medical examiner's testimony, two color Polaroid photographs taken during the external examination of the victim were admitted as full exhibits without objection by defendant. The photographs revealed the stab wound to the left upper chest and a defense wound on the right hand. The state also moved to admit an eight-by-ten-inch, black-and-white glossy photograph of the victim's upper body depicting both the thoracotomy incision and the stab wound. The defendant objected, arguing that the photograph was cumulative, lacked probative value and was unduly inflammatory. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the photograph. ¹

Another witness for the state, Officer James Mendonca (Mendonca) of the Central Falls police department, testified that on March 31, 1991, he and two other officers were summoned to 107 Sylvian Street, Central Falls, Rhode Island. Upon their arrival they saw a man, later identified as the victim, lying in the driveway and bleeding profusely. After calling for medical rescue, the officers proceeded to 91 Sylvian Street. They were let into the apartment and found defendant sitting in the kitchen. Mendonca testified that as the officers entered the kitchen, defendant rose and said something to the effect of "I didn't do it, you can't prove I did it, I've been here all day."

The defendant objected to the officer's testimony, arguing that the latter part of the statement had not been disclosed by the state as required by Rule 16 and that the statement undermined defendant's intoxication defense. ² The state conceded that it had not disclosed the statement, but claimed that its nondisclosure was inadvertent. The trial court heard both parties, concluded that there had been an inadvertent nondisclosure by the state in violation of Rule 16, and asked defendant what relief he desired. The defendant moved to strike the testimony and requested a curative instruction to the jury. The trial court complied. At no time did defendant move to pass the case.

On appeal defendant argues that the trial court erred by admitting the black-and-white, enlarged photograph. The source of defendant's objection was the seven-inch thoracotomy incision the photograph portrayed. The defendant contends that the photograph was irrelevant, cumulative, and unduly inflammatory because a color photograph showing the victim's stab wound had already been admitted and the thoracotomy incision had not been inflicted by defendant.

The state claims that the photograph, introduced during the testimony of the medical examiner who had conducted the autopsy of the victim, was relevant because it showed the stab wound, the condition of the body at the time of the autopsy and it would aid the jury in understanding the expert's testimony. The state further argues that the trial court clearly explained to the jury that the thoracotomy had not been caused by defendant stabbing the victim.

It is within the trial court's discretion to determine the materiality or relevance of photographs. State v. Correia, 600 A.2d 279, 284 (R.I.1991). A photograph is relevant if it has a tendency to "prove or disprove some material fact in issue." Id. at 285 (citing State v. Barnville, 445 A.2d 298, 301 (R.I.1982)); see also Rule 401 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. Photographs of a murder victim that are faithful representations of the victim at the time in issue are admissible in the trial court's discretion

"as an aid to the jury in arriving at a proper understanding of the evidence as proof of the corpus delecti, the extent of the injury, the condition and identification of the body * * * even though such photographs...