Providence
County Superior Court P1/10-998A Associate Justice Robert D.
Krause
For
State: Christopher R. Bush Department of Attorney General
For
Defendant: Angela M. Yingling Office of the Public Defender
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and
Indeglia, JJ.
OPINION
William P. Robinson III Associate Justice
The
defendant, Oscar Muralles, appeals from a judgment of
conviction after a jury found him guilty of two counts of
first-degree child molestation and two counts of
second-degree child molestation-all involving the complaining
witness, Rick, [1] the defendant's former stepson, who
was born on October 13, 1998 and was fifteen years old at the
time of trial in February of 2014. On appeal, the defendant
contends that the trial justice erred in denying his motion
for a new trial because, in the defendant's view: (1) the
trial justice overlooked and misconceived the evidence; and
(2) the verdict failed to truly respond to the evidence and
failed to do substantial justice between the parties.
This
case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on
October 5, 2016. For the reasons set forth in this opinion,
we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
I
Facts and Travel[2]
On
October 24, 2008, Oliver, the eight-year-old half-brother of
Rick, disclosed to their mother, Danielle, that he had
witnessed Rick perform oral sex on defendant (who is
Rick's former stepfather and Oliver's biological
father).[3] Upon being questioned about that
allegation by Danielle, Rick testified that he initially
denied the incident out of fear and embarrassment, but that
he later confirmed its veracity to her.
On
March 23, 2010, a Providence County grand jury indicted
defendant on two counts of first-degree child molestation, in
violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 11-37-8.1 and 11-37-8.2
(Counts Two and Five), and five counts of second-degree child
molestation, in violation of §§ 11-37-8.3 and
11-37-8.4 (Counts One, Three, Four, Six and Seven). A jury
trial commenced on February 24, 2014. On February 26, upon
defendant's motion pursuant to Rule 29 of the Superior
Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial justice granted
judgment of acquittal on Counts Three, Four, and Six. The
remaining counts (Counts One, Two, Five, and Seven) were
submitted to the jury, which found him guilty of each of
those counts. The trial justice proceeded to sentence
defendant to concurrent sentences of: (1) fifty years,
thirty-five years to serve, the balance suspended with
probation, for the first-degree child molestation
convictions; and (2) twenty-five years, ten years to serve,
the balance suspended with probation, for the second-degree
child molestation convictions.
We
summarize below the trial testimony that is relevant to the
sole issue raised on appeal-viz., whether the trial
justice erred in denying defendant's motion for a new
trial. We note at the outset that Rick testified in highly
specific detail about the multiple incidents of molestation
that he accused defendant of having perpetrated between
January of 2002 and October of 2008. No beneficial purpose
would be served by reproducing here his very graphic
testimony (other than that which is essential)-especially
since defendant has opted not to challenge the sufficiency of
the evidence in support of the counts of which he stands
convicted, limiting himself instead to questioning the weight
of the evidence and challenging the credibility of various
witnesses. See State v. Cook, 45 A.3d 1272, 1273
(R.I. 2012).
A
The
Testimony at Trial
1.
The Testimony of Oliver
Oliver
(Rick's younger half-brother) testified that, in October
of 2008, when he was eight, he saw Rick engaged in
"sucking" defendant's penis in the basement.
When asked by the prosecutor to clarify about the
"sucking, " Oliver stated that Rick had brought
"his mouth and hands" into contact with
defendant's penis. It was Oliver's testimony that, on
October 24, 2008, he told his mother that he had seen
"[his] dad do[] * * * bad stuff." On direct
examination, the prosecutor engaged in the following exchange
with Oliver:
"[PROSECUTOR]: And when you told your mom, did you say
those words or did you demonstrate it somehow?
"* * *
"[WITNESS]: I demonstrated.
"[PROSECUTOR]: Can you just show the jury what
demonstration you were doing[?]
"[WITNESS]: I got my hand and went like that
(demonstrating). I showed it to my mom like that.
"[PROSECUTOR]: So you showed your mom that
demonstration. Okay. For the record, that's you with a
fist in your hand, going up and down towards your mouth?
"* * *
"[WITNESS]: Yes."
When
Oliver was asked by defense counsel why he decided to tell
his mother about the just-referenced sexual incident, he
replied: "Because * * * I know that it was wrong, but
[defendant] was still doing it." He stated that his
mother "told [him] to tell the truth." In addition,
defense counsel posed questions to a seemingly confused
Oliver about whether or not he and Rick discussed the
incident.[4]
2.
The Testimony of the Complaining Witness
It is
clear from the testimony of Rick, the complaining witness,
that, at the time of the incidents at issue, he was living
with his mother, Danielle, and his siblings, Oliver, Wallace,
and Donna. He testified that he and Oliver and Wallace used
to go to visit defendant almost every weekend at his
residence on Penn Street in Providence. Although defendant
lived in the basement of his brother's house, Rick
testified that, when visiting defendant, he mostly played
upstairs with his half-brothers. However, it was also
Rick's testimony that there were times when he and
defendant were alone in the latter's bedroom in the
basement. At trial, Rick described six separate sexual
incidents that he testified took place on defendant's
bed, during which defendant ...