State v. Rossi, 86-84-C
| Decision Date | 06 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-84-C,86-84-C |
| Citation | 520 A.2d 582 |
| Parties | STATE v. Vincent F. ROSSI, Jr. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
A Superior Court jury has found the defendant, Vincent F. Rossi, Jr., guilty of having committed a second-degree child-molestation sexual assault and having solicited or persuaded the child to commit perjury.
During the summer of 1984 an eight-year-old girl, whom we shall call Kathy, was interviewed at her home by members of the Cranston police department. The police were investigating a report that Kathy had been sexually assaulted by Rossi's landlord. Rossi rented an apartment in which he resided with a female companion and the companion's young daughter. At Rossi's trial Kathy testified that she had lied when she accused the landlord but explained that Rossi had threatened to kill Kathy's mother if Kathy did not lie.
Rossi had sought to implicate the landlord because the landlord had raised the rent. The youngster also told the jury that Rossi helped her prepare for and practice the falsehood she would tell about the landlord. At one point, according to Kathy, Rossi removed Kathy's clothes, exposed his penis and with it made contact with the child's vaginal area. Kathy also explained that she was afraid of Rossi "because he's bigger than me."
There are many facets to Rossi's appeal. He first claims that the state erred in charging him pursuant to G.L.1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-1-9, the general-solicitation statute that makes it a felony for any person who solicits another to commit or join in the commission of a felony. Rossi argues that the state should have charged him pursuant to § 11-33-2, a statute that specifically relates to the subornation of perjury. Rossi invokes the principle that the existence of a specific statute precludes the state from charging him pursuant to a general-solicitation statute.
This claim merits no consideration because an examination of the record indicates that at no time was the issue raised before the trial court. An issue not raised at trial will not be considered initially on appeal by this court. State v. Long, 488 A.2d 427 (R.I.1985); State v. Fogarty, 433 A.2d 972 (R.I.1981).
Rossi's next assertion is of some interest because he claims that his solicitation conviction may not stand because Kathy, as a minor, could not be convicted of the crime of perjury. No perjury, no solicitation, says Rossi. We disagree.
At common law, the crime of solicitation is limited to instances in which the crime solicited is either a felony, or a misdemeanor that tends to breach the peace or to obstruct justice or otherwise to be injurious to the public welfare. For the crime of solicitation to be completed, it is only necessary that the person solicit another to commit a crime. At that point, the solicitor is guilty of solicitation, regardless of the response the solicitee makes to the proposal. LaFave and Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law, § 6.1 (2nd ed. 1986); 4 Wharton's Criminal Law, § 713 at 511, 513 (14th ed. Torcia 1981). The substance of the particular charge now before us is solicitation, and the offense was complete when the solicitation was made. A similar view can also be found in the Model Penal Code, which notes that the fact that the solicitee is "irresponsible or has an immunity" is no defense to the charge of solicitation. Model Penal Code § 5.04 (1)(b) (Official draft May 24, 1962).
The third facet of Rossi's defense can be classified as ingenious, if not persuasive. It deals with the second-degree child-molestation sexual-assault charge that is the subject of G.L.1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-37-8.3, P.L.1984, ch. 59, § 2. This statute prohibits any person from engaging in sexual contact with another person thirteen years of age or under. The term "sexual contact" is defined as
Section 11-37-1, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Andujar
...the person did solicit another to commit, provided that imprisonment for the solicitation shall not exceed ten (10) years." State v. Rossi, 520 A.2d 582 (R.I.1987), represents the only opportunity this Court has had to construe Rhode Island's criminal solicitation statute. In that case, the......
-
In re B.H.
...suggestion, the mere fact that he characterized the exchange as an “experiment” does not foreclose this conclusion. Cf. State v. Rossi, 520 A.2d 582, 583, 584 (R.I.1987) (rejecting sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge in second-degree child molestation case where the defendant argued that ......
-
In re B.H.
...suggestion, the mere fact that he characterized the exchange as an "experiment" does not foreclose this conclusion. Cf. State v. Rossi, 520 A.2d 582, 583, 584 (R.I. 1987) (rejecting sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge in second-degree child molestation case where the defendant argued that......
-
State v. Brown, 89-610-C
...must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the state. State v. Rossi, 520 A.2d 582, 584 (R.I.1987). Having done so, we believe that the evidence presented at trial shows, at the most, an ambiguous touch from which a jury w......