State v. Robat
| Decision Date | 12 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010–61–C.A.,2010–61–C.A. |
| Citation | 49 A.3d 58 |
| Parties | STATE v. Julie ROBAT. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher R. Bush, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Janice M. Weisfeld, Office of the Public Defender, for Defendant.
Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.
The defendant, Julie Robat, appeals from a judgment of conviction on one count of second-degree murder. The victim was the defendant's newborn daughter. On appeal, the defendant first contends that the trial justice erred in failing to grant her motion for a judgment of acquittal and her later motion for a new trial on the second-degree murder charge; the basis for that contention is the defendant's underlying assertion that the state failed to provide legally sufficient evidence for a jury to find that she acted with malice in connection with the death of her baby. The defendant additionally contends on appeal that the trial justice erred in failing to grant her motion for a new trial because of what she alleges were improper comments made by the prosecutor during her closing argument.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
On the night of October 29 or in the early morning hours of October 30, 2006, defendant gave birth to a baby girl in the home of her parents; the baby was full-term (or nearly full-term) and healthy. It is the tragic death of the newborn daughter of defendant which resulted in the criminal prosecution of defendant and the instant appeal.
On April 13, 2007, a Providence County grand jury indicted defendant for the murder of her child, in violation of G.L.1956 §§ 11–23–1 and 11–23–2; she was also indicted for failure to report a death with the intent of concealing a crime, in violation of G.L.1956 § 23–4–7, which charge was later dismissed by the state pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On April 2, 2009, defendant's trial began in the Superior Court for Providence County. The state presented the testimony of fourteen witnesses; in due course, defendant took the stand in her own defense and also presented the testimony of five additional witnesses. We summarize below the trial testimony pertinent to the issues on appeal.
Thomas Ellis (defendant's former boyfriend) testified that, on a particular evening sometime between late February and early March of 2006,1 defendant came to his apartment. (At that point in time, defendant and Mr. Ellis had been dating for approximately four years; defendant was thirty years old and was living with her parents and her two younger sisters.) 2 Mr. Ellis testified that the purpose of defendant's visit was to discuss her suspicion that she was pregnant. Mr. Ellis stated that, while at his apartment, defendant took a home pregnancy test and learned that the result of that test was positive. Mr. Ellis further testified that he observed that, when she learned of the positive result, defendant was “petrified;” he added that she had “[a]lmost terror in her voice.” He stated that she told him that, in view of her unmarried state, she was afraid of telling her parents that she was pregnant. Mr. Ellis testified that he and defendant discussed abortion, but he added that they reached no agreement on that evening as to how they were going to deal with the pregnancy.
Mr. Ellis then testified that, although he attempted to contact defendant in the interim, the next time that the two actually spoke was not until late August or early September of that year.3 Mr. Ellis stated that, at that time, they began speaking more regularly, but without discussing the pregnancy; he testified that he had assumed that defendant had had an abortion.
Marie, the youngest sister of defendant, was nineteen years old at the time of the death of defendant's baby. She testified that, after being out during the night of October 29, 2006, she returned to her parents' home at approximately 12:50 a.m. on the morning of October 30.5 Marie testified that, when she “got home,” she went to her bedroom and then walked down the hallway to knock on the upstairs bathroom door, which was closed; she said that, when she knocked on the door, defendant responded that she would “be out in a minute.” Christine, the middle sister, testified that she had knocked on the closed bathroom door approximately one hour earlier and had received a similar response; specifically, Christine testified that she had asked if she could use the bathroom, and defendant had responded: “No. I'm using it.” Christine added that defendant might have said “[g]o downstairs,” directing Christine to use the bathroom located downstairs.
Marie next testified that, at that time, she did not sense that anything was wrong; she said that, after taking a few minutes to get ready for bed, she returned to the bathroom. Marie testified that, when she walked through the open bathroom door and into the bathroom itself, she “saw [defendant] leaning over a counter,” under which her family kept a laundry basket. Marie stated that she asked defendant “if she was okay” and that defendant responded that she was “fine;” however, Marie further stated that she observed that her sister was pale. Marie testified that she then proceeded to clean up a puddle of blood that she had noticed on the floor in front of the toilet; she said that the puddle of blood was approximately ten inches to one foot in size. Marie stated that, when she asked her sister what had happened, she responded that she “got [her] thing.” Marie testified that she understood that statement to mean that her sister was menstruating. Marie stated that, when she inquired further, defendant said that she had fallen.
Marie further testified that, after cleaning up the blood, she went to awaken her sister Christine, who was in bed “[h]alf asleep;” Marie said that she then told Christine: “There's something wrong with Julie.” Marie testified that, just then, both she and Christine “heard a boom.” She stated that they saw that defendant had fallen “face first” in the hallway; Marie added that “it looked like she had passed out.” Marie testified that defendant then stood up and was “coherent” and that she and Christine helped their sister reach the bathroom. Marie further testified that, while accompanying defendant to the bathroom, she noticed “a spot of blood” on the hallway floor; she added that, once in the bathroom, defendant was bleeding from “[h]er vaginal area” and that there was blood “[a]ll over [her] legs.” Marie testified that she and Christine then helped to clean their sister while she continued to tell them that she was menstruating. Marie stated that she and Christine discussed calling 911, but that defendant told them that she was fine and did not need an ambulance.
Marie testified that, after she and Christine helped defendant clean herself off, defendant said to them: Marie stated that she then followed defendant, who was carrying the laundry basket from the bathroom down to the laundry room. Marie testified that, on the basis of what she was able to see, there were “[j]ust towels” in the laundry basket. Marie stated that, even though she offered to help, defendant said that she wanted to do the laundry by herself. Marie further testified that she offered to stay with defendant while she did the laundry, but that defendant responded:
Marie stated that she then left the laundry room and went to draw a bath for defendant. Christine testified that, at that point, she went downstairs into the laundry room and that defendant had “plopped herself on the cement ground floor” and commented that “the cement felt good.” Christine stated that she then left defendant “for a minute” and that, upon her return, defendant was still on the floor. Christine further stated, however, that the washing machine had been started and that she noticed that it was a “red, red load.” Christine testified that she then helped defendant back upstairs to the bathroom; she said that defendant “was still bleeding” and that she and Marie put defendant into the bathtub.
Marie testified as follows about defendant's appearance: Marie stated that defendant then had a seizure; she said that “[defendant's] head went back, her eyes rolled into the back of her head, and she started shaking.”
Marie proceeded to testify that, at that point, Christine yelled to their father from the bathroom and that he came into the bathroom.6 Marie stated that she then dialed 911, and Christine spoke to the 911 operator. 7 Marie testified that defendant did not want to go to the hospital and did not agree with their decision to call 911.8 Marie further testified that, once the emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived, they had to persuade defendant to go to the hospital. Marie affirmed that, up to that point, defendant had not told anyone that there was a baby in the house. Marie testified that, once defendant left in the ambulance, she and Christine stayed at the house and cleaned up the bathroom and then eventually made their way to the hospital where defendant had been taken. Marie testified that the first time that she learned about the birth of a baby was when defendant was in the hospital; she stated that she and Christine went into defendant's hospital room and that defendant “told [them] that she did have a baby.” Marie added that defendant also told them that the baby had been born dead. Marie also testified that she asked defendant what color the baby was and that she had responded that “it was purple.” 9
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Scott
...care for children "can constitute murder or involuntary manslaughter" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Robat , 49 A.3d 58, 60, 80 (R.I. 2012) (affirming conviction for second-degree murder based on failure to obtain medical care for a newborn); Simpkins v. State , ......
-
State v. Mendez
...of the evidence, it is the practice of this Court to first address the motion based on the weight of the evidence.See State v. Robat, 49 A.3d 58, 72 (R.I.2012) (stating that this Court reviews a motion for a new trial before reviewing a motion for a judgment of acquittal); State v. Richards......
-
State v. Ricker
...this Court to discern whether the trial justice has applied the appropriate standards’ ") (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Robat , 49 A.3d 58, 71 (R.I. 2012) ). Therefore, we discern no error in the trial justice's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial based on the weight of the ......
-
State v. Offley
...evidence sufficient to allow this [C]ourt to discern whether the [trial] justice has applied the appropriate standards." State v. Robat, 49 A.3d 58, 71 (R.I.2012) (quoting State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759, 766 (R.I.2011) ).iiAnalysis The trial justice began his analysis of the motion by noting ......