Providence County Superior Court. (P2/11-2297AG). Associate Justice Robert D. Krause.
For State: Christopher R. Bush, Department of Attorney General.
For Defendant: Janice M. Weisfeld, Office of the Public Defender.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
The defendant, Mohamed Nabe, appeals from a judgment of conviction on one count of carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle without a license. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After a close review of the record and careful consideration of the parties' arguments (both written and oral), we are satisfied that cause has not been shown and that this appeal may be decided at this time. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the Superior Court's judgment of conviction.
Facts and Travel
On May 2, 2011, a drive-by shooting occurred near the intersection of Camp Street and Doyle Avenue in Providence. Subsequently, on August 5, 2011, the state filed a multi-count criminal information charging defendant and a codefendant, Jean Sajous, in connection with that shooting. On May 18, 2012, the state filed a second criminal information against defendant charging him with additional crimes
relating to the May 2 shooting incident. Prior to trial, the state dismissed several of the counts against defendant that had been charged in the two criminal informations; and the trial justice consolidated for trial the remaining counts in the two cases stemming from the two separate informations. A trial was held in June of 2012 with respect to the following charges: carrying a handgun in a motor vehicle without a license in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-47-8(a); operating a motor vehicle in an attempt to elude the police in violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-4; discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle with a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury in violation of § 11-47-51.1; conspiracy to discharge a firearm from a motor vehicle in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-1-6; using a firearm while committing a crime of violence in violation of § 11-47-3.2(b); driving with a suspended license in violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-11-18; and solicitation in violation of § 11-1-9. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that, on May 2, 2011, defendant did not have a duly issued license or permit to carry or possess a pistol. We summarize below the salient aspects of what occurred at trial.
The Testimony of Officer David ...