State v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 04 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2000-411-C.A.,2000-411-C.A. |
| Citation | 798 A.2d 435 |
| Parties | STATE v. Reynaldo RODRIGUEZ. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
Lauren Sandler Zurier/Aaron L. Weisman, Providence, for Plaintiff.
Paula Rosin, Providence, for Defendant.
The defendant, Reynaldo Rodriguez, has appealed a judgment of conviction on three counts: (1) possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, (2) conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and (3) possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to deliver. The defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years, fifteen years to serve, on the first two counts, and two years to serve on the third count, and he was fined $750. Five years of the sentence on the first count were imposed pursuant to the habitual offender statute. During the pre-briefing process before this Court, the state conceded that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, and the pre-briefing justice vacated the conviction and sentence on the conspiracy charge and dismissed the second count of the indictment.1
The case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on May 14, 2002, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the remaining issues in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing oral arguments and after reviewing the record and the memoranda of the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown, and we summarily affirm the judgment of the Superior Court with respect to counts one and three of the indictment.
In May 1997, Sgt. Joseph Lennon (Sgt. Lennon) of the Providence police department executed a search warrant for heroin and "any articles relating to the sale and or use of narcotics" at the Rogers Recreational Center (center) in Providence. At that point, the director of the center, Leo Cronan, Jr. (Cronan), was the target of the investigation. During the search, the officers discovered a box containing approximately forty rounds of .45-caliber ammunition above a ceiling panel in the bathroom/shower room. In the same location, Sgt. Lennon also discovered a shoe box containing numerous items, including a coffee sifter — referred to in later testimony as a coffee grinder or coffee mill — containing white residue, two plastic sifters, ink stamps, scotch tape, masking tape, a digital gram scale, a glass pestle containing white residue, a banking card, a paint brush, a stainless steel spoon, empty glassine packets, a plastic bag, and some rubber bands. A field test conducted by Sgt. Lennon indicated that the white residue was heroin, which was confirmed by subsequent laboratory tests. Based on his experience in narcotics investigations, Sgt. Lennon concluded that all the items in the shoe box were used for "bagging heroin," a process by which heroin is cut with other ingredients to reduce its strength, before placing it in smaller bags for sale on the street. He acknowledged that all the items found in the box could be purchased legally.
Sergeant Lennon testified that after he questioned Cronan at the police station, he determined that Cronan had no knowledge of the items in the box, and no charges were brought against him. After receiving further information about fingerprints on the items that were seized, Sgt. Lennon charged defendant and another individual, one Emiliano Pagan.
At trial, Cronan testified that he had loaned the keys to the center to five people on occasion, including defendant, who was his nephew by marriage. Cronan asserted that the keys were "like a city key" and could not be copied. Over defendant's objection, Walter Williams (Williams), a former member of the Providence police force, was qualified as an expert in fingerprint identification. Williams testified that he discovered latent prints on the coffee mill, the glass pestle, and the ammunition box that matched defendant's fingerprints. Specifically, he matched the print of defendant's right ring finger to the print on the coffee mill, the print of defendant's right thumb to the print found on the pestle, and defendant's left thumb print to the print found inside the ammunition box. Williams also identified a palm print on the shoe box as belonging to defendant. He noted that there were two other palm prints on the shoe box that he positively identified as belonging to Emiliano Pagan. On cross-examination, Williams testified that he cannot tell when a fingerprint was placed on an item, or how long it has been there.
At the close of the state's case, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied. The defendant renewed the motion after the close of evidence, and the trial justice affirmed her denial of the motion. The jury found defendant guilty on all three counts, and defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. The defendant appealed, arguing first, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions and second, that the trial justice abused her discretion when she qualified Williams as an expert in fingerprint identification.
This Court has held that "[i]n reviewing a claim of legal sufficiency of the evidence in the context of a motion for a judgment of acquittal, this Court applies the same standard as that applied by the trial court, namely, `[we] must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, * * * giving full credibility to the state's witnesses, and draw therefrom all reasonable inferences consistent with guilt.'" State v. Otero, 788 A.2d 469, 475 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Snow, 670 A.2d 239, 243 (R.I.1996)). Moreover, this Court has held that circumstantial evidence, including fingerprint evidence, may be sufficient to support a conviction, State v. Jackson, 570 A.2d 1115, 1117-18 (R.I.1990) (per curiam), "as long as the totality of the circumstantial evidence presented to the finder of fact constitutes proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Otero, 788 A.2d at 473 (quoting State v. Hornoff, 760 A.2d 927, 932 (R.I. 2000)).
Here, defendant asserted that, in the absence of proof that his fingerprints could only have been left on the seized items during the commission of the crime, the state could not rely on the fingerprint evidence to prove defendant's guilt. For support, defendant cited, inter alia, State v. Moran, 699 A.2d 20, 29 (R.I.1997),
in which this Court vacated the conviction of a defendant (Gregoire) alleged to have been the driver of a getaway car during a robbery. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Picerno, C.A. No. P1-02-3047B (R.I. Super 1/30/2004)
...to consider expert opinion: (1) "whether a proferred expert is qualified to testify on a particular subject," State v. Rodriguez, 798 A.2d 435, 438 (R.I. 2002); and (2) if so, is such testimony "based on ostensibly reliable scientific reasoning and methodology." Owens v. Silvia, No. 2002-21......
-
State v. Arroyo
...of the trial justice, and this Court will not disturb such a finding absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Rodriguez, 798 A.2d 435, 438 (R.I.2002) (per curiam) (citing State v. Collins, 679 A.2d 862, 867 (R.I. 1996)). "An individual need not hold a particular license, title or c......
-
State v. Berroa
...of fact constitutes proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190, 197 (R.I.2005) (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 798 A.2d 435, 437 (R.I.2002)). Here, there is a serious lack of proof of any agreement to advance a conspiracy. In our opinion, this case is firmly cont......
-
State v. Disla
...giving full credibility to the state's witnesses, and draw therefrom all reasonable inferences consistent with guilt.'" State v. Rodriguez, 798 A.2d 435, 437 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Otero, 788 A.2d 469, 475 B. State's Confession of Error The state does not contest defendant's assertion......