State v. Robinson

Citation989 A.2d 965
Decision Date12 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 2006-322-C.A.,2006-322-C.A.
PartiesSTATE v. Leroy ROBINSON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Jane M. McSoley, Department of Attorney General, for Plaintiff.

Paula Rosin, Office of the Public Defender, for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION

Justice ROBINSON for the Court.

On February 10, 2006, a Providence County Superior Court jury found the defendant, Leroy Robinson, guilty of two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault. On May 23, 2006, the defendant received two concurrent sentences of twenty years imprisonment, with nine years to serve and the remainder suspended, with probation.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial justice erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress the confession that he made to a Providence police detective; (2) allowing into evidence certain testimony of the mother of the complaining witness, which testimony defendant contends violates the hearsay evidence rule; and (3) allowing into evidence certain testimony of the above-referenced Providence police detective concerning uncharged sexual acts, which testimony defendant contends violates two provisions of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

I Facts and Travel

This case centers around allegations to the effect that defendant sexually molested a young man whom we shall call Steven.1 The defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault and one count of second-degree child molestation sexual assault, which assaults were allegedly committed between August 21 and 31 of 1999. We set forth below the most significant testimony given by various witnesses who testified at defendant's jury trial or at the suppression hearing that preceded the trial.

A The Testimony of Tracey

Tracey (Steven's mother) testified at trial as a witness for the prosecution. She testified that, on the morning of August 10, 2003, she entered Steven's bedroom.2 She stated that on that occasion she found Steven naked in bed with her stepson, Fred Jr.3 She testified that, when she questioned them, the boys did not admit to having engaged in any inappropriate sexual conduct; she stated that they just said to her that "it was hot" and that "they [had] only touched each other on the stomach."

Tracey further testified that, in the evening of August 10, she told Steven that she wanted to know the truth about what had occurred with Fred Jr. that morning. Tracey stated that, although Steven did not initially admit to having molested his stepbrother, he eventually made the following statement to her (as she recalled it): "I only did it because Leroy did it to me."4 Tracey stated that she then called Fred Jr.'s mother (Valerie) to discuss what she had observed.

Tracey testified that, on the following day (August 11), she convened a family meeting in order to discuss what had occurred between Steven and Fred Jr. and to discuss how to proceed with regard to Steven's accusation concerning Leroy Robinson. Present at that meeting in addition to Tracey were her mother, Steven, Fred Sr. (Tracey's husband and Fred Jr.'s father), Fred Jr., and Valerie. Tracey testified that, at the family meeting, Steven and Fred Jr. admitted to having engaged in some inappropriate touching, but they denied having engaged in any oral sexual contact. She testified that, after discussing the accusation that Steven had made with respect to Leroy Robinson, the whole family group (including Steven) decided to go to Leroy's apartment in order to confront him with Steven's allegations of sexual abuse.

Tracey testified that, when she initially confronted Leroy, he denied having "violated" Steven; but she added that, when Leroy was face to face with Steven, Leroy admitted to having molested him. Tracey stated that defendant also told her that he himself had been molested in a group home. Tracey testified that defendant began to cry and that she then "smacked" him; she further testified that no one else struck defendant. She stated that soon thereafter her husband asked Valerie to summon the police.

B The Testimony of Steven

Steven, the complaining witness, testified at trial that defendant is the nephew of his stepmother (Josephine); Josephine is married to Steven's father. Steven testified that, as a child, he often visited his father on weekends and that sometimes defendant would be there at the same time. Steven described his relationship with defendant as falling into the "fun" category; he testified that he and defendant would engage in such activities as playing games, wrestling, and riding in defendant's car. Steven testified that, from time to time while they were engaged in these activities, he and defendant would be joined by Steven's siblings and other relatives.

Steven further testified that his mother and his stepfather (Fred Sr.) were married on August 21, 1999 and that he stayed at his biological father's home for two or three days after the wedding.5 According to Steven's testimony, while he and his brothers were staying at his father's home, defendant came to visit. When that visit was over, defendant drove Steven and his brothers to his own apartment, where he lived with his mother and his sisters.

Steven testified that he spent that August night at defendant's apartment and that he, his two brothers, and defendant all slept in the same bed in the living room. Steven stated that he awoke when he felt someone pulling his boxer shorts. Steven testified that it was defendant who was doing the pulling and that defendant proceeded to "put his mouth on [Steven's] penis." Steven further testified that he then performed a similar sexual act on defendant. Steven stated that, after the sexual acts were completed, he went back to sleep. Steven testified that he did not tell anyone what had occurred because he had "liked it."

Steven also testified that the just-described August 1999 sexual conduct was not the first time that defendant had engaged in oral sexual conduct with him; he stated that the first instance had occurred in the living room of his father's house when he was "about nine" years old. At that point in the trial, the trial justice instructed the jurors that they were not to consider Steven's testimony with respect to that prior sexual activity with defendant as evidence of defendant's bad character or as evidence that defendant had a propensity to commit such acts. The trial justice further instructed the jury that they could consider the evidence "to establish, if you believe this witness, the nature of the relationship between the witness and the defendant; [and/or] the disposition or intent of the defendant towards this witness, and for no other reason or no other purpose." The trial justice further instructed the jurors that they could not use Steven's testimony regarding sexual conduct with defendant when he was nine years old "to find him guilty of the charges that he is on trial for * * * today." Steven then proceeded to testify that, on that earlier occasion (when he was approximately nine years old), defendant had awakened him and had performed oral sex on him, after which Steven had performed oral sex on defendant; Steven added that defendant then masturbated both himself and Steven.

Steven testified that he did not tell anyone about defendant's conduct until August of 2003, when he told his mother that defendant had previously molested him; Steven was sixteen years old at that time.6 Steven testified that his reason for making the August 2003 disclosure to his mother (Tracey) was because she had (in Steven's words) "walked in on [him] molesting [his] step-brother" (Fred Jr.). It was further Steven's testimony that he told his mother that "Leroy did the same thing to me."

C The Testimony of Detective Miele

Detective Robert Miele of the Providence Police Department testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress defendant's confession.7 According to Detective Miele's testimony, as of the time of the suppression hearing he had been a member of the Providence police force for twenty-two years and had served in various capacities; he said that, in August of 2003, he was serving in the "special victims unit." He testified that, on August 11, 2003, he was telephoned by Officer Michael Long, who informed him that he had responded to a call that necessitated an investigation into allegations of child molestation. Officer Long stated to Detective Miele that he had with him the complaining witness as well as the suspected perpetrator and several other people connected with the case. Detective Miele testified that he instructed Officer Long to bring them all to the station. He testified that Officer Long then detained defendant and transported him to the Providence police station;8 he added that Steven and the other witnesses were also transported to the police station.

Detective Miele stated that, at the police station, he first spoke briefly with Officer Long and then proceeded to speak with Steven, his mother (Tracey), and his stepfather (Fred Sr.). The detective added that, while he was engaged in conducting the just-referenced interviews, defendant was held in a locked cell in the detention area of the police station. Detective Miele stated that, when he finished conducting those witness interviews (a process which the detective estimated lasted approximately thirty to forty minutes), he proceeded to interview defendant.

In describing his August 11, 2003 interview of defendant, Detective Miele testified that he removed defendant from his cell in the detention area and brought him to an interview room, which he described as being a plain room with a window; he said that the room contained a table, several chairs, and a mirror. The detective added that the only exit from the interview room is locked from the outside. Detective Miele testified that, upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • State v. Barros, 2008–292–C.A.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 8, 2011
  • State v. Madigan
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 17, 2015
    ...and that common-law fresh-complaint rule is no longer a valid exception to prohibition on admitting hearsay testimony); State v. Robinson, 989 A.2d 965, 979 (R.I.2010) (evaluating out-of-court statements in child-abuse case under ordinary hearsay rules rather than fresh-complaint doctrine).......
  • State v. Madigan
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 17, 2015
    ...Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant. PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Skoglund and Robinson, JJ., and Hayes, Supr. J., Specially Assigned ¶ 1. ROBINSON, J. DefendantCharles (Hank) Madigan appeals his conviction of three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child. On appeal, defendant......
  • State v. Moreno
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • June 23, 2010
    ...testimony, if error at all, constituted harmless error. See State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574, 590 (R.I.2005); see also State v. Robinson, 989 A.2d 965, 978 (R.I.2010); State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 State v. Danahey, 108 R.I. 291, 294-97, 274 A.2d 736, 738-39 (1971); see generally Arizo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT