State v. Washington
| Citation | 189 A.3d 43 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2016–151–C.A.,(P2/15–1538AG),2016–151–C.A. |
| Parties | STATE v. Willie WASHINGTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Lauren S. Zurier, Department of Attorney General, Providence, for State.
Kara J. Maguire, Office of the Public Defender, Providence, for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
The defendant, Willie Washington, was found guilty by a jury of four offenses in connection with a shooting that occurred in Providence on November 15, 2014.1 Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, the defendant was sentenced to a total of sixty years to serve, with twenty years of that sentence designated as nonparolable. On March 8, 2016, the defendant timely appealed from the judgment of conviction.
This appeal has traveled somewhat of an unusual course since it was docketed. Approximately one year after the appeal was filed, on April 28, 2017, defendant filed in this Court a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance and remand the matter to the Superior Court to allow him to seek a new trial based on alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ; the state objected. This Court denied defendant's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance, but granted the remand motion. This Court remanded the portion of the record necessary for the Superior Court to hear and decide defendant's Brady -related motion for a new trial. On June 19, 2017, a hearing on the alleged Brady violation was held before the same justice of the Superior Court who presided over defendant's trial. Four days after the hearing concluded, defendant filed a motion to recuse the trial justice. The trial justice held a hearing on defendant's recusal motion on June 26, 2017; and, on July 19, 2017, the trial justice issued a decision denying both the Brady -related motion for a new trial and the recusal motion.
This matter is again before this Court. The defendant now challenges his conviction on five grounds, contending that the trial justice erred by: (1) denying defendant's motion to suppress two witnesses' show-up identifications; (2) admitting the recording of an anonymous 911 call at trial; (3) "failing to implement the letter and spirit of this Court's remand order" in the trial justice's consideration of defendant's Brady claim; (4) failing to find that the state withheld information in violation of Brady after dialing the anonymous 911 caller's phone number and speaking with an individual prior to trial; and (5) denying defendant's motion to recuse. After careful consideration of defendant's arguments and a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
It is undisputed that on November 15, 2014, at approximately 1 a.m., Rudy Basquez, Jr., a food-delivery driver, was shot in the arm in a road-rage incident. Basquez was driving on Huxley Avenue in Providence after making a food delivery on the Providence College campus when he saw his brother, Michael Pickering, a food-delivery driver for another establishment, parked on Huxley Avenue. Basquez stopped his vehicle next to Pickering's, and the two conversed; in doing so, they blocked traffic in both directions. During their conversation, a dark-colored SUV pulled up behind Basquez's car, and its driver yelled profanities and repeatedly honked the SUV's horn because Basquez's vehicle was blocking his passage. Basquez and the driver of the SUV both exited their vehicles and a verbal argument took place. As Basquez and the SUV driver returned to their respective vehicles, Basquez observed the passenger door of the SUV open and heard "multiple pops"; Basquez suffered a gunshot wound
to his arm. The SUV subsequently drove off.
Prior to trial, defendant sought to suppress identifications made by two percipient witnesses. At a hearing on defendant's motion, the following evidence emerged.
On the evening of November 15, 2014, Laura Ferretti and Brianna Sheetz were visiting friends at Providence College together, and they attended a party. They each claimed to have consumed one beer approximately two hours before the incident. At 1 a.m., Ferretti and Sheetz were sitting in Sheetz's car waiting for friends before they began their drive back home to Connecticut. Ferretti was sitting in the driver's seat and Sheetz was sitting in the passenger's seat, when a smaller vehicle pulled up alongside Sheetz's car. The driver of the smaller vehicle stopped to talk with someone, whom the women could not see, on the other side of the street. A larger vehicle then pulled up behind the smaller vehicle. Ferretti described the larger vehicle as a "greenish-blue" Jeep, "like an SUV." Sheetz similarly described the larger vehicle as an SUV. When asked the color of the SUV, Sheetz first stated that she did not recall, then subsequently stated, "It was light-colored, I believe."
Then, a heated argument between the occupants of the two vehicles erupted. Ferretti testified that the SUV honked at the smaller car, and the man in the smaller car exited his vehicle and "mouth[ed] off" at the SUV driver. Ferretti then saw someone exit the SUV, but she did not recall from which door he exited. Sheetz testified that both drivers were outside of their vehicles during the argument. Both Ferretti and Sheetz then witnessed an occupant of the SUV fire several gunshots in the direction of the smaller vehicle. Ferretti testified that, once the gunshots began, she and Sheetz put their seats back and made no further observations. Sheetz, however, recalled that when Ferretti told her "to get down," she did not duck immediately, but instead continued to watch as the shooter entered the passenger-side door of the SUV and the vehicle drove off.
Ferretti testified that the shooter was a tall, average-build, African–American male with a black beard who was wearing a dark-colored sweatshirt and a dark-colored beanie. Sheetz described the shooter as "very tall," with a muscular build, a "light African–American" skin tone, and wearing a "dark jacket, navy blue probably, or black" with no hood, and a beanie hat. Sheetz described the shooter's face as round with facial hair and noted that her opportunity to observe the shooter's face was "okay." When Ferretti was asked if she "g[o]t a good look at [the shooter's] face," she testified "Yes" and described the viewing conditions as well-lit under the street lamps. Ferretti further testified that she observed the shooter for the "entire time that he * * * walked out of his car and shot at the [victim,]" which lasted approximately one minute or less. Sheetz, however, was uncertain regarding the length of the incident, but indicated that she observed the shooter for a few minutes.
Ferretti and Sheetz both spoke to officers at the scene following the shooting and then were transported to the Providence police station. Approximately one hour after the shooting, Ferretti and Sheetz were driven separately to another location to participate in two discrete show-up identifications. Ferretti recalled that, prior to the show-up, Detective Ronald Riley, Jr. informed her that "[the suspect] was going to come out of the police car that they had put him in, and we were just going to look at him and see if we recognized him." When they arrived to the show-up location, Ferretti sat in a police vehicle wearing her contact lenses and viewed the suspect, without any problem, from approximately thirty-one feet away. The suspect was removed from a marked police cruiser without handcuffs and under spotlights. Ferretti testified that there were approximately five officers present at the show-up who were either standing near the suspect or sitting inside the six marked police cruisers parked close by. Ferretti identified the suspect as the shooter, had "no doubt" in her identification, and, in particular, recognized the suspect's dark-colored sweatshirt and his beard, and noted that he had the "same face" as the shooter. During the pretrial hearing, Ferretti identified defendant in the courtroom as the shooter.
Prior to the show-up with Sheetz, Detective Robert Melaragno informed her that she would be viewing "a possible suspect" and instructed her "that * * * if [she] knew who he was, to identify him." While sitting in a police cruiser, Sheetz observed a suspect, well-lit by the cruiser spotlights, from approximately thirty feet away. Sheetz observed two or three officers near the suspect, but she could not recall if there were others in the vicinity. She testified that she "knew it was him when [she] saw him" and that During the pretrial hearing, Sheetz stated that she had no doubt that it was the same person; however, during the show-up, she had told Det. Melaragno that she was only 90 percent certain. She testified that she had slightly minimized her expression of certainty during the show-up because she "didn't want to be wrong," but testified that she "think[s] that [she] was always sure." On cross-examination, when asked why her disposition changed from uncertain to certain, Sheetz explained that she "had time to think about it." During the pretrial hearing, however, Sheetz was unable to identify defendant in the courtroom as the shooter.
Patrolman Matthew McGloin had been a member of the Providence police department for six years. On the night of the shooting, Officer McGloin heard a radio broadcast regarding a shooting on Huxley Avenue that referenced a license plate that he subsequently determined to be actively registered to defendant. In an effort to locate defendant, he researched defendant's visitor list from an earlier incarceration, which included defendant's girlfriend's Providence address. Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roberson, 2017AP1894-CR
......amend. XIV, § 1. 7 Article I, Section 8 provides in relevant part, "No person may be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law." Wis. Const. art. I, § 8. 8 We are aware of states that mention Dubose , but none have decided to follow it. For example, State v. Washington , 189 A.3d 43, 55–57 (R.I. 2018) ; State v. Herrera , 187 N.J. 493, 902 A.2d 177, 181 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) ; State v. Ledbetter , 275 Conn. 534, 881 A.2d 290 (2005) overruled on other grounds by State v. Harris , 330 ......
-
State v. Doolin
...to examine the consensus eyewitness science. See, e.g., Small v. State , 464 Md. 68, 211 A.3d 236, 250–55 (2019) ; State v. Washington , 189 A.3d 43, 55–58 (R.I. 2018) ; State v. Doap Deng Chuol , 849 N.W.2d 255, 261–62 (S.D. 2014).The later path of failing to consider three decades of deve......
-
State v. Johnson
...a motion to suppress, we ‘will not overturn a trial justice's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.’ " State v. Washington , 189 A.3d 43, 56 (R.I. 2018) (quoting State v. Harrison , 66 A.3d 432, 441 (R.I. 2013) ). "In our review of any alleged constitutional violation, we ‘mus......
-
State v. Segrain
...erroneous standard." State v. Gonzalez , 136 A.3d 1131, 1145 (R.I. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Washington , 189 A.3d 43, 56 (R.I. 2018). We have further stated that, "[i]n making this determination, we assess the available evidence in the light most favorable to t......