Supreme Court

No. 2018-144-C.A.

(P1/17-1236AG)

State :

v. :

Joseph Segrain. :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision 

before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers 

are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme 

Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, 

Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or 

Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any 

typographical or other formal errors in order that 

corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

June 24, 2021
- 1 -

Supreme Court

No. 2018-144-C.A.

(P1/17-1236AG)

State :

v. :

Joseph Segrain. :

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

O P I N I O N

Justice Robinson, for the Court. This case is replete with complexities 

that necessitate a relatively lengthy factual narrative on our part. In the end, 

however, our focus will of course be on the legal issues implicated by the appeal of 

the defendant, Joseph Segrain. The defendant appeals from a March 29, 2018 

judgment of conviction and commitment entered in the Providence County 

Superior Court, reflecting the fact that he was found guilty by a jury on five counts 

related to conduct stemming from a drive-by shooting.

1 On appeal, the defendant

1 The defendant was also convicted of one other count (viz., Count Seven) 

stemming from the same conduct; but, pursuant to a stipulation, that count was not 

decided by the jury, but by the trial justice, who found defendant guilty. See

footnote 3, infra.
- 2 -

contends that the trial justice2erred by: (1) granting the first mistrial, thereby

allegedly violating his constitutional right against being put in double jeopardy; 

(2) denying his motion to suppress a particular eyewitness identification; 

(3) denying his motion to recuse; (4) denying his right to represent himself at trial 

and at the sentencing hearing; and (5) allowing certain videos and testimony to be 

admitted into evidence.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court.

I

Facts and Travel

The instant case arises out of what can best be characterized as a feud 

involving members of two rival gangs based in Pawtucket—one called “Bucket 

East” and the other “Bucket West.” That feud ultimately led to a drive-by shooting

on January 9, 2017, which resulted in a number of criminal charges being lodged 

against defendant. The relevant facts as to what transpired on that date will be set 

forth in detail when we relate the witness testimony that is part of the voluminous 

record in this case. 

2 Since the same justice of the Superior Court was involved in all phases of 

this case, we shall refer to him throughout this opinion as “the trial justice” without 

variously referring to him as “the hearing justice” or “the sentencing justice.”
- 3 -

On May 10, 2017, defendant was indicted by a grand jury on the following

counts: assault with a dangerous weapon (Count One); discharge of a firearm 

during a crime of violence (Count Two); conspiracy to commit a felony (Count 

Three); unlawful possession of a firearm (Count Four); unlawful possession of a 

firearm (Count Five); discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle (Count Six); and 

unlawful possession of a firearm by an individual having previously been 

convicted of a crime of violence (Count Seven).3

A

Pretrial Motions

Before the eventual criminal trial of defendant took place, the trial justice

heard pretrial motions with respect to a number of issues, the rulings on all but one 

of which motions have not been challenged on appeal. Accordingly, we need only

focus on the pretrial hearing relative to defendant’s motion to suppress a particular

eyewitness identification.

Geovanni Perez, a parking attendant, testified at the pretrial hearing (and 

later at trial). Mr. Perez testified that, on January 9, 2017, he was employed as a 

valet at the Hope Club, which is located on the corner of Benefit Street and 

Benevolent Street in Providence, and where an event was scheduled for noon. He 

3 Count Five was eventually dismissed by the trial justice as being identical to 

Count Four. Count Seven was not presented to the jury; instead, pursuant to a 

stipulation, it was decided by the trial justice. See footnote 1, supra.
- 4 -

stated that, when he arrived in the vicinity of the Hope Club, he parked his car on 

Benevolent Street toward the top of the hill. He said that, while he was walking 

down Benevolent Street towards the Hope Club, he was interrupted by a man 

sitting in the driver’s seat of a “black” “BMW X5 SUV,” who lowered his window 

and asked him if one was permitted to park on that street. Mr. Perez added that, 

during this interaction, he was standing on the driver’s side of the car, roughly one 

foot away from the driver.

Mr. Perez also testified that, at some point thereafter, people began to arrive 

for the scheduled event at the Hope Club and that, because there were so many cars 

trying to park, traffic was overflowing onto Benefit Street (which runs 

perpendicular to Benevolent Street).

4

 He stated that he then once again saw the 

man with whom he had spoken earlier and that the man was still driving the BMW 

and was attempting to get around the traffic. Mr. Perez testified that, when the car

tried to “come up” Benevolent Street, he approached the driver and helped him 

“back out” onto, and proceed down, Benefit Street. He added that, while doing so, 

he made eye contact with the man.

4

In order to assist the reader unfamiliar with the city streets of Providence in 

visualizing the events that are summarized in this opinion, we would indicate that 

Benevolent Street is a relatively small street, which runs in a roughly East-West

direction and is on a hill. Benefit Street is a lengthy street in the historic section of 

Providence; it runs in a roughly North-South direction. The Providence County 

Courthouse is located on Benefit Street, and it is not far from Benevolent Street.
- 5 -

Mr. Perez proceeded to testify at the hearing that, on January 19, 2017 (ten 

days after his encounters with the driver of the BMW near the Hope Club), he 

spoke with detectives from the Providence Police Department about his abovedescribed interactions with the driver of the BMW. He stated that the detectives 

first showed him a single photograph of a car (in which there was a driver), which 

car he identified as the car that he had twice seen near the Hope Club on January 9. 

Mr. Perez added that, following his identification of the vehicle, the detectives had 

him participate in a photographic lineup by displaying a series of photographs 

sequentially. He testified that, when he saw the second photograph in the 

sequential display, he told the detectives that it was a photograph of the man with 

whom he had spoken on January 9.

After he had testified at the suppression hearing with respect to his January 

19 out-of-court identification of defendant in the presence of the detectives, Mr. 

Perez proceeded next to make an in-court identification of defendant as being the 

individual whom he had spoken to and seen driving the BMW on January 9. 

The trial justice ultimately denied defendant’s motion to suppress Mr. 

Perez’s identification, and Mr. Perez was thereafter permitted to testify at trial.
- 6 -

B

The First Aborted Trial

The defendant’s first trial commenced on January 2, 2018. The first witness 

to testify was Attorney Lauren Balkcom. She testified on direct examination about 

what occurred in and around Courtroom 10 of the Superior Court on January 9, 

2017. While being cross-examined by defense counsel and while attempting to 

seek clarification of a question posed to her by counsel, she made reference to “the 

violation hearing * * *.”5 Immediately following that mention of “the violation 

hearing,” defense counsel requested a sidebar conference with the trial justice. At 

that conference, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that Attorney 

Balkcom’s reference to a prior judicial proceeding involving defendant (“the 

violation hearing”) prejudiced defendant in the eyes of the jury. After hearing 

arguments from counsel, the trial justice denied the motion for a mistrial, finding 

that the reference to the violation hearing was not a “purposeful remark on 

[Attorney Balkcom’s] part to try and derail this train.” Nonetheless, the trial 

justice gave a cautionary instruction to the jury, which included the following 

statement (characterized by the trial justice as “a civil untruth”): “There was no 

5 Solely for the purpose of contextualizing Attorney Balkcom’s reference to 

“the violation hearing,” we note that, several months before defendant’s actual

criminal trial, he was the subject of a probation violation hearing that addressed 

whether his alleged conduct on January 9, 2017 had violated the terms and 

conditions of a probationary sentence he had previously received. See State v. 

Segrain, 243 A.3d 1055, 1056-57 (R.I. 2021).
- 7 -

violation type of proceeding prior to this trial. The witness misspoke herself.” The 

trial justice added: “That is to say, the proceedings before this Court.”

The trial then resumed. However, partway through the testimony of the 

second witness for the state, the trial justice revisited the issue of the motion for a 

mistrial. He stated that, although he had told the jury “a civil untruth,” he 

considered the jury to be a “smart group,” and he said that he was not sure 

“[w]hether they buy [the civil untruth] or not * * *.” Ultimately, the trial justice 

opted to grant the mistrial. The defendant did not immediately move for dismissal 

of the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. See, e.g., State v. Casas, 792 A.2d 

737, 738 (R.I. 2002).

C

The Second Aborted Trial

The defendant’s second trial began on January 10, 2018. Before jury 

impanelment commenced, defendant asked to address the trial justice. In the midst 

of the trial justice’s admonition to defendant that he would not permit “hybrid 

counsel,”6 defendant interrupted to complain about what he claimed to be “the 

violation of [his] rights” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant 

specifically stated that his rights were violated because the trial justice was 

6 This Court has stated that a “criminal defendant has no right to hybrid 

representation, whereby some tasks are performed by counsel and others by the 

defendant on a pro se basis.” State v. Connery, 139 A.3d 401, 403 n.4 (R.I. 2016) 

(quoting State v. Oliveira, 127 A.3d 65, 80 (R.I. 2015)).
- 8 -

“supposed to call th[e] mistrial immediately, and * * * didn’t” and because the trial 

justice had “lied” when he “gave the jurors the wrong instructions.” The trial

justice did not respond to defendant’s comments and instead directed the sheriffs to 

bring the jury into the courtroom. Before the jury entered, however, defendant 

refused to let the sheriffs remove his leg restraints, and he complained about being 

“sprayed and tasered” by the sheriffs. When defendant finally permitted the 

sheriffs to remove his leg restraints, jury voir dire began.

On January 16, 2018, the third day of defendant’s second trial, while the jury 

was still being impaneled, defendant again asked to address the court directly 

because he “ha[d] a couple of issues that [he] would like to bring up * * *.” 

Specifically, and for the first time, defendant raised the issue of the double 

jeopardy provision in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,7

stating that it “affords a criminal defendant a valued right to have his trial 

completed by a particular tribunal, which the first one was tainted, not because of 

me.” He further added that he wanted to “stop[] these proceedings” because he 

“never consented to a mistrial.”

7

“The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (made applicable to 

the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) * * * protect[s] a defendant from 

being prosecuted more than once for the same offense.” State v. O’Connor, 936 

A.2d 216, 220 n.4 (R.I. 2007). The Fifth Amendment provides in pertinent part: 

“[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy 

of life or limb[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
- 9 -

In a response spanning thirteen transcript pages, the trial justice outlined the 

ways whereby he had attempted to protect defendant’s rights—which included his

having given the jury a cautionary instruction and having granted the mistrial 

motion with respect to the first trial. After the trial justice completed his remarks 

and attempted to let the impanelment process continue, defendant stated that, for 

the remainder of the trial, he planned to proceed pro se and that defense counsel 

would thereafter act as standby counsel. The trial justice warned defendant that 

“[r]epresenting oneself is very chancy and not a very smart move,” to which 

defendant responded:

“It’s definitely not hard. I did all this myself. I didn’t 

ask [defense counsel] to help me. Every motion that was 

put in, I told her to put it in. Franks hearing, I told her to 

do it. That was me. That wasn’t [defense counsel]. So 

it’s not hard. I can comprehend everything. I got a 

Black’s Law Dictionary. I have the same books you

have. It’s not hard. I can pull over the law, too.

“* * *

“* * * I just need a couple of days to go over my 

paperwork, and I’ll represent myself. It’s not hard.”

With respect to defendant’s request for a continuance of “a couple of days,” the 

trial justice stated that, because defendant had “spr[u]ng this on [him] at the last 

minute” and because there was “a jury upstairs that [they had] begun to impanel” 

and “other new jurors that [they were] going to use to finish the impanelment,” he 

would not grant a continuance. The defendant continued to directly address the 
- 10 -

court by making a motion to dismiss the case and a “motion to suppress” the 

entirety of Attorney Balkcom’s testimony from the first trial; he also asked for the 

opportunity to review the transcript of the sidebar conference during the first trial 

regarding the motion for a mistrial. After denying each of these motions, the trial 

justice permitted defendant to proceed pro se, with defense counsel acting as 

standby counsel.

On two more occasions that same day, the trial justice revisited the issue of 

defendant’s decision to represent himself, reiterating the point that “firing a lawyer 

and waiving your right to counsel are very serious things.” Notably, after jury 

impanelment had concluded (but before the jury was sworn), the following 

colloquy ensued:

“THE DEFENDANT: I never indicated I wanted to go 

pro se.

“THE COURT: Yes, you did.

“THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. I’m being forced to go pro 

se because you won’t let me get another attorney. Don’t 

say I made that decision.

“THE COURT: Don’t you raise your voice to me.

“THE DEFENDANT: I’m not raising my voice. I’m

talking to you.

“THE COURT: Yes, you are.

“THE DEFENDANT: That’s the way I talk. I apologize

if I’m loud. That’s the way I talk.
- 11 -

“THE COURT: Well, you better modulate your tongue

from now on.

“THE DEFENDANT: All right. Then you do the same.

“THE COURT: I’m holding you in contempt. This jury

will be sent home. It will not be sworn. Six months. 

And I would suggest and recommend that it will be [in] 

administrative segregation.”

On January 18, 2018, two days after the colloquy that ended with defendant 

being held in contempt, he appeared again before the trial justice. At that point, 

defense counsel informed the trial justice that defendant had again engaged her as 

his attorney, and she added that defendant had “something that he would like to say 

to the [c]ourt * * *.” The trial justice reviewed with defendant the ramifications of 

separating from counsel and confirmed that defendant was prepared to move 

forward with defense counsel representing him. He permitted defendant to directly 

address the court, at which point defendant apologized for his conduct earlier that 

week. Defense counsel then asked that the trial justice purge the finding of 

contempt in light of defendant’s “acknowledge[ment] [of] the error of his 

ways * * *.” The trial justice responded as follows:

“THE COURT: You know, Mr. Segrain, this is the

second time you have offered to me an apology for 

conduct that one could easily view as contumacious and 

insolent in the courtroom. You gave the sheriffs a hard 

time, you uttered vulgarities, the likes of which are at the

furthest pole that one could imagine. Vulgarities were

directed at the [c]ourt. You were argumentative. You
- 12 -

interrupted. You raised your voice. One does not easily

forgive or forget when a defendant says to the [c]ourt,

‘F*** you.’ But let’s start fresh. Okay?

“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

“THE COURT: Out of respect to [defense counsel’s]

efforts on your behalf, and her long-standing 

representation of the clients in this courthouse over the 

years, okay, I’ll purge the contempt.”

Following this colloquy, the trial justice questioned whether defendant 

wished to proceed with the jury that had been impaneled or whether he wanted to 

“start fresh” the following week. Defense counsel, after conferring with defendant, 

informed the trial justice of defendant’s wish that an entirely new trial take place.

8

 

At this point, the panel was excused, but jeopardy had not attached.

D

The Actual Trial

1. The Motion to Recuse

On January 22, 2018, another trial commenced—and, this time, it would 

proceed to a verdict and sentencing. Before jury voir dire began, defense counsel, 

at defendant’s request, moved to recuse the trial justice. In making that motion, 

8 We would note that, because defendant began representing himself halfway 

through jury impanelment, defense counsel conducted part of the voir dire and 

defendant thereafter completed the process. In granting the mistrial motion, the 

trial justice stated that he wanted to “protect [defendant] from any kind of adverse 

impression that the present jury might draw if we were to go forward as it has been 

conscripted, first with [defense counsel], then with you, then with [defense 

counsel] again * * *.”
- 13 -

defense counsel stated: “My client feels that the [c]ourt’s decisions on the motions 

that have thus far been addressed in this case reflect a prejudice on the part of the 

[c]ourt against him, and he is asking that this case be transferred to another judge 

for trial.” After hearing the state’s response, the trial justice denied the motion. In 

rendering his decision, the trial justice stated: “The party seeking recusal bears the

burden of establishing that the judicial officer possesses a personal bias or 

prejudice by reason of a preconceived or settled opinion of a characteristic

calculated to impair his impartiality seriously and to sway his judgment.” He 

further stated: “The defendant has not only completely failed to make any such 

showing, he has offered no grounds whatsoever.” Accordingly, the trial justice 

continued presiding over the trial.

The case was ultimately heard by a jury on various dates in January and 

February of 2018. We relate below the salient aspects of what transpired at that 

trial.

2. The Testimony of Various Witnesses

There follows the testimony of those witnesses whose testimony we deem 

relevant to our resolution of the issues on appeal.

i. The Testimony of Brandon Bates

Brandon Bates, a member of the Bucket East gang, testified that, on January 

9, 2017, he drove one John Laboy, also a member of that gang, to the Providence 
- 14 -

County Courthouse, where Mr. Laboy had a scheduled court appearance. Mr. 

Bates further testified that he accompanied Mr. Laboy to court because

“supposably [sic] some people we had issues with were supposed to be in the 

courtroom that day.” Mr. Bates stated that, when he and Mr. Laboy arrived at their 

destination, he parked on College Street9 behind what he recognized as defendant’s 

BMW. He further stated that, upon arriving at the courthouse, he and Mr. Laboy

were joined by eight or nine other members of the Bucket East gang. Mr. Bates

added that, after entering the courthouse, he remained by the courtroom door, 

while some other members of the group, including defendant, proceeded into the

courtroom. He stated that, at some point thereafter, members of the group were 

escorted outside by courthouse security. Mr. Bates testified that, about ten or 

fifteen minutes later, the group walked toward the parked cars; he added that 

defendant got into the driver’s seat of the BMW.

ii. The Testimony of Attorney Lauren Balkcom

Attorney Lauren Balkcom also testified about the events of January 9, 2017. 

She began by stating that, on that date, she was on the fifth floor of the Providence 

9 The record reflects that several of the witnesses at trial referred to the street 

on which defendant and other members of the Bucket East gang had parked their 

vehicles as “College Hill.” However, it is clear from Mr. Bates’s testimony and 

the record as a whole that all references to “College Hill” actually relate to

“College Street,” which street is located adjacent to the Providence County 

Courthouse; and we shall hereinafter use the latter designation.
- 15 -

County Courthouse10 representing one Carlos Depina11 on a matter unrelated to the 

instant case. Attorney Balkcom testified that Carlos Depina was accompanied by 

three friends and family members, including Mathew Depina (the eventual victim 

of the drive-by shooting at issue in this case); she added that Carlos Depina and his 

three companions were seated in the back row of the courtroom. Attorney 

Balkcom further testified that she was sitting in the back of the courtroom speaking 

with Carlos Depina (her client) when defendant and several other individuals 

entered the courtroom; she added that defendant sat between Carlos Depina and 

one of his companions. Attorney Balkcom stated that she briefly spoke to

defendant and asked him to relocate to another place in the courtroom so that she 

could continue her conversation with her client in private. She testified that

defendant directed a vulgarity at her before he left the courtroom accompanied by

other individuals. Attorney Balkcom stated that she followed defendant and the 

other individuals into the hallway, where she “spoke with the head of security * * * 

and a sheriff * * *.”

10 A person entering or leaving the fifth floor of the Providence County 

Courthouse would use the Benefit Street entrance.

11 Mathew Depina testified that he knew Carlos Depina to be a member of the 

Bucket West gang.
- 16 -

Attorney Balkcom further testified that, when she returned to the courtroom, 

Carlos Depina and his companions were watching a Facebook Live12 video on a 

cellular phone. She stated that the video showed a group of individuals standing 

outside on the courthouse steps directing vulgarities at her and at Carlos Depina

and other members of the Bucket West gang. Attorney Balkcom said that, after 

viewing the video, she walked over to the courtroom window, from where she saw 

the same group of individuals walking up College Street and then entering their 

vehicles and driving down the street. Attorney Balkcom further stated that she 

photographed the vehicles, as she was able to see them from the courtroom

window as they were driving. She added that she recognized the individual driving 

the first vehicle, a BMW, as defendant. 

Attorney Balkcom testified that, at some point thereafter, Carlos Depina and 

his companions left the courthouse. She added that, after they left, she went down 

to the first floor of the courthouse,

13 from which location she observed Dana 

Smith, the official in charge of security operations for the Superior Court, running 

12 Facebook Live is a feature of Facebook, an online social networking 

platform, that allows users to “[g]o live on Facebook to broadcast a conversation, 

performance, Q&A or virtual event.” See https://www.facebook.com/formedia/

solutions/facebook-live (last visited June 22, 2021).

13 The first floor of the courthouse faces South Main Street, a major street that 

runs in a North-South direction.
- 17 -

toward the Crawford Street Bridge.14 Attorney Balkcom testified that she followed 

Mr. Smith across South Main Street and that, when she was closer to the bridge, 

she “observed a white four-door sedan crashed on the bridge” and “Mr. Mathew 

Depina being put into an ambulance.” She stated that the white vehicle belonged

to Mathew Depina.

iii. The Testimony of Dana Smith

Dana Smith, the above-referenced security official, provided further 

testimony about the events of January 9. Mr. Smith stated that he was standing 

outside of Courtroom 10 when he observed several men—including defendant and 

Mr. Laboy—exit that courtroom. He testified that, when he spoke to those 

individuals soon thereafter, he told them that they should not re-enter the 

courtroom. He added that he later told them—and others who had joined them—to 

leave the courthouse entirely. Mr. Smith stated that all of the individuals to whom 

he had spoken, with the exception of defendant, left the building. He said that 

defendant remained in the building, but went downstairs, asserting that “he had 

some other business * * * elsewhere in the courthouse * * *.” Mr. Smith testified 

that, although the group of individuals had exited the building, they remained close 

by—standing “on the stairs and right in front of the courthouse * * *.”

14 We note that Attorney Balkcom did not indicate the name of the bridge 

during her testimony, but only described its location. However, based on the 

entirety of her testimony, it is clear to us that she was referring to the Crawford 

Street Bridge.
- 18 -

It was further Mr. Smith’s testimony that, about fifteen or twenty minutes 

later, he told the group standing outside to leave the area. He stated that the group,

which defendant had now rejoined, proceeded up College Street and got into 

several vehicles; he added that defendant was sitting in the driver’s seat of a SUVstyle BMW. Mr. Smith testified that, from a window inside the courthouse, he 

watched the cars drive down College Street in the direction of Benefit Street. He

stated that, at some point thereafter, he heard gunshots and that he then proceeded 

to the first floor of the courthouse, ran across South Main Street toward the 

Crawford Street Bridge,

15 and observed “a white vehicle that had just been shot 

up.”

iv. The Testimony of Samuel

An individual to whom we shall refer as “Samuel”

16 also testified as to what 

occurred on January 9, 2017. Samuel stated that, as of that date, he was a member 

of the Bucket East gang. He testified that he and other members of that gang went 

to the courthouse on January 9 because they were going to “target Carlos Depina,”

15 It should be noted that, like Attorney Balkcom, Mr. Smith did not indicate 

the name of the bridge during his testimony but only referred to its location. Based 

on the entirety of his testimony and the record as a whole, it is clear to us that he 

was referring to the Crawford Street Bridge.

16 We refer to said witness pseudonymously in view of his status as a minor at 

the time of trial.
- 19 -

a member of the Bucket West gang, who had a court appearance scheduled for that 

day.

Samuel stated that, when he ultimately left the courthouse with other 

members of the Bucket East gang, he got into a black BMW and that defendant got 

into the driver’s seat of the same car. Samuel further testified that, while they were 

driving, defendant located and followed the “white Chevy” in which Carlos Depina

had arrived at the courthouse. He added that, soon thereafter, defendant pulled the 

BMW next to the “Chevy” and fired shots “[s]ix, seven times” into that vehicle.

v. The Testimony of Geovanni Perez

At trial, Mr. Perez testified consistently with the testimony which he had

provided at the pretrial suppression hearing. And he provided an in-court 

identification of defendant as the man he had seen driving the BMW on January 9, 

2017.

vi. The Testimony of Detective Jonathan Primiano

Detective Jonathan Primiano testified that, at the time of trial, he was a 

detective in the Investigative Bureau of the Providence Police Department. 

Detective Primiano testified that, in addition to carrying out his usual duties, he 

also worked with the Digital Forensics Unit, where he dealt with “computer, video 

and mobile forensics.” He stated that, with respect to the instant case, he “assisted 

in some digital video forensics.” He testified that videos taken from different 
- 20 -

vantage points throughout the city on January 9, 2017 were turned over to him for 

analysis.

17 Detective Primiano identified the individual videos which he reviewed 

as well as (1) a compilation of videos that was produced by “IT people here at the 

courthouse” and (2) a “PowerPoint presentation” that he had created based on 

information contained in the videos. Each of the individual videos as well as the 

video compilation and the “PowerPoint presentation” were entered into evidence 

as full exhibits, without objection from defense counsel. (Defense counsel’s only 

objection was to Detective Primiano’s “narration and identification of the 

individuals who are allegedly depicted in the video[s], including the defendant.”)

vii. The Testimony of Correctional Officer Jon Defilippis

Jon Defilippis was called by the state to rebut the testimony of Carlos 

Depina, who had testified that he had never before seen defendant. He stated that, 

as of the time of trial, he was working as a correctional officer at the Adult 

Correctional Institutions. He stated that, while working at the ACI, he had 

witnessed a fight between Carlos Depina and defendant, but that he did not know 

who started the fight. Defense counsel neither objected to the admission of Mr. 

Defilippis’s testimony nor requested a cautionary instruction to the effect that the 

evidence could be used only for purposes of impeachment.

17 Detective Primiano testified that the videos he analyzed came from “[t]he 

Rhode [Island] School of Design, Brown University, the Superior [Court], and One 

Financial Square.”
- 21 -

3. The Verdict

After the presentation of all the evidence, and after closing arguments and 

the jury instructions, the jury found defendant guilty on Counts One, Two, Three, 

Four, and Six. Pursuant to a stipulation in the case, Count Seven was decided by 

the trial justice rather than the jury; the trial justice adjudged defendant guilty on 

that Count.18

E

The Sentencing Hearing

On March 29, 2018, defendant was scheduled to appear before the trial

justice for sentencing. Before the sentencing hearing began, however, defendant

refused to leave the courthouse cell block. The trial justice directed defense 

counsel to inform defendant of his right to be present at the sentencing hearing and 

to advise him that, should he fail to appear, he would “waive any and all rights and 

steps and measures that are taken at [the] sentencing proceeding * * *.” After 

speaking with defendant in the cellblock, defense counsel informed the trial justice 

that, after she had advised defendant as to his rights, he stated: “‘You’re not my 

lawyer. I’m going to represent myself.’”

The defendant entered the courtroom shortly thereafter, at which point he 

made comments to a similar effect—namely, that he would not be represented by 

18 See footnote 1, supra.
- 22 -

counsel at the sentencing hearing and would instead be representing himself. More 

specifically, defendant stated that he wished to represent himself for the following 

reasons: “Because [counsel] put in a motion for a new trial two weeks after my

conviction, without telling me. She never consulted with me and I just got newlydiscovered evidence that I’m going to present * * *.”

In responding to defendant’s expressed wish to proceed pro se, the trial

justice pointed out that this was not the first time during the course of the various

proceedings relative to this case that defendant had attempted to separate himself 

from defense counsel. The trial justice further stated: “I thought you realized how 

ill-prepared you were to undertake your own representation and it seemed, at least

at first blush, that you regretted your mistake in trying to do so, and you again 

realigned yourself with [defense counsel].” He then stated that, based on 

defendant’s behavior19 and his expressed intention to proceed pro se at the 

sentencing hearing, “it is clear to me that you still do not understand or appreciate 

the risks and disadvantages of trying to represent yourself, even though I have

previously warned you about the proverbial adage of having a fool for a client, 

19 The trial justice noted that defendant had “tried to obstruct the sheriffs;” 

“loudly paraded down the hallway outside this courtroom, proclaiming that this 

was ‘a circus and where were the balloons[;]’” “openly cursed this [c]ourt and 

behaved insultingly and disrespectfully to the point of being held in contempt;” 

“vaulted to [his] feet loudly and yelled, ‘Objection’ three times” during crossexamination of a certain witness; and “[l]ater during the trial [he] became 

disengaged, turning [his] chair around, turned [his] back to the jury for a great 

length of time, staring at the gallery and/or out the window.”
- 23 -

which you so quickly dismissed.” The trial justice proceeded to tell defendant that 

he had found that “the two-part test to support an election to represent yourself has 

not at all been satisfied. The attempt to waive counsel is not fully voluntary and it 

is certainly not knowing and intelligent.” Accordingly, the trial justice denied 

defendant’s expressed desire to proceed pro se at the sentencing hearing. 

The defendant was sentenced as follows: twenty years to serve on Count 

One; twenty years to serve, without parole, on Count Two (consecutive to Count 

One); ten years to serve on Count Three (concurrent with Count One); ten years to 

serve on Count Four (concurrent with Count One); fifteen years to serve on Count 

Six (consecutive to Count Two); ten years to serve on Count Seven (consecutive to

Count Six); and, as a habitual offender, he was sentenced to twenty-five years, 

with fifteen years to serve without parole, and the remaining ten years suspended, 

with probation, to be served consecutively to Count Seven. A notice of appeal to 

this Court was timely filed.

II

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the trial justice erred by granting a 

mistrial and thereby violating his constitutional right against being put in double

jeopardy; (2) the trial justice erred by denying the motion to suppress a particular

eyewitness identification; (3) the trial justice erred by denying the motion to 
- 24 -

recuse; (4) the trial justice erred by denying defendant’s right to represent himself 

at trial and at the sentencing hearing; and (5) the trial justice erred by allowing into

evidence certain videos and testimony. We shall now proceed to address 

defendant’s various contentions.

III

Analysis

A

The First Mistrial and the Double Jeopardy Contention

The defendant asserts on appeal that there is nothing in the record to indicate 

that he consented to a mistrial following Attorney Balkcom’s reference to “the 

violation hearing” in the course of the first trial. He contends that he never 

discussed the mistrial issue with his trial attorney and that, when he questioned the 

trial justice as to the ramifications of a mistrial, the trial justice provided an 

erroneous response. The defendant argues to this Court that, because he did not 

consent and because the trial justice “sua sponte reverse[d] his previous denial of 

the mistrial,” his subsequent trials on the same charges violated his rights under the 

double jeopardy provision in the Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution.

20

 We need not reach the substance of this argument because 

defendant has failed to properly preserve it for our review.

20 See footnote 7, supra.
- 25 -

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, the defense of double jeopardy “may be raised only by motion before 

trial.” (Emphasis added.) See State v. Day, 925 A.2d 962, 977 (R.I. 2007); State 

v. Thomas, 654 A.2d 327, 330 (R.I. 1995). We have stated that “failure to raise 

such a motion before trial precludes that defendant from thereafter raising a double 

jeopardy challenge.” Day, 925 A.2d at 977. It is true that we have also stated that, 

upon a showing of good cause, a “defendant can obtain relief from the strong 

medicine that Rule 12(b)(2) dispenses * * *.” State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 

647 (R.I. 2006). However, our case law also makes clear that “[o]nly in limited 

circumstances will this [C]ourt review a claim of double jeopardy despite its 

improper assertion.” Thomas, 654 A.2d at 330. And in those limited 

circumstances, “the burden is on a defendant to show cause why relief should be 

granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” State v. Lee, 502 

A.2d 332, 334 (R.I. 1985). 

In the present case, it is undisputed that defendant failed to submit before the 

start of his second trial a motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). In fact, in the course of arguing before this Court, 

defendant candidly conceded this point as well as the fact that no such motion was 

made before his third trial commenced. Although it is true that defendant 

eventually brought to the trial justice’s attention his contention relative to double 
- 26 -

jeopardy, we note that that did not occur until halfway through jury voir dire on the 

third day of defendant’s second trial. After careful consideration, it is our view 

that, because defendant did not “show cause why relief should be granted 

notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense,” we are convinced that the 

instant case does not constitute one of the “limited circumstances” referenced in 

the Thomas opinion. Thomas, 654 A.2d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Instead, it is our view that Rule 12(b)(2) as explicated in the Day opinion is 

controlling. See Day, 925 A.2d at 977. Accordingly, we are convinced that there 

is no need to reach the merits of defendant’s belatedly raised double jeopardy 

contention.

B

Denial of Motion to Suppress Eyewitness Identification

The defendant contends on appeal that, because Mr. Perez’s identifications

were “tainted,” the trial justice erred in denying the motion to suppress that

identification. He bases his contention about the identification being “tainted” on 

the fact that the lead detective assigned to his case conducted what defendant

characterized as a “single photo show up” with Mr. Perez prior to the sequential 

photo display. The defendant contends in essence that, because Mr. Perez was the 

sole unbiased witness, the faulty identification procedure “ruined the neutrality” of 
- 27 -

his identification, which served to “buttress the * * * testimony of the cooperating 

co-defendants that testified against defendant.” 

It is well established that, when reviewing a trial justice’s denial of a motion 

to suppress evidence, we will “defer to the factual findings of the trial justice, 

applying a clearly 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 the state.” State v. 

Gallop, 89 A.3d 795, 801 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In this context, the trial justice must undertake a two-step analysis to 

determine the propriety of an eyewitness identification procedure. Washington, 

189 A.3d at 55; see State v. Austin, 114 A.3d 87, 94 (R.I. 2015); Gallop, 89 A.3d at 

801. First, the trial justice must determine whether the procedure used was 

“unnecessarily suggestive.” Gallop, 89 A.3d at 801 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We have explicated the concept of unnecessary suggestiveness by 

stating that, to fall into that category, “an identification procedure must have been 

so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of 

irreparable misidentification * * *.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Then, 

if the trial justice does find that the identification procedure at issue was 

unnecessarily suggestive, “he or she must look at the totality of the circumstances 
- 28 -

to determine whether the identification was nevertheless reliable.” Washington, 

189 A.3d at 55. In dealing with the reliability issue, the trial justice is called upon 

to consider various factors. See, e.g., Gallop, 89 A.3d at 801; State v. Patel, 949 

A.2d 401, 411 (R.I. 2008)). If, after evaluating these factors, “the trial justice 

concludes that the identification has independent reliability, then [the 

identification] will be admissible notwithstanding the suggestiveness of the 

procedure employed.” Gallop, 89 A.3d at 801.

The defendant contends on appeal that what he calls the “single photo show

up” was unnecessarily suggestive and that it tainted the reliability of the 

identification procedure. With respect to the first step of the analysis, the trial

justice quite correctly commented at the outset (in what appears to us to have been 

an ironic understatement) that presenting the single photograph of defendant in the 

BMW before presenting the photo display was not “the best way of doing things.”

However, he further observed that said photo did not “clearly or obviously depict 

defendant * * *.” Moreover, he added that, in spite of the fact that he himself had

seen defendant in the courtroom on multiple occasions, he could not “look at that 

BMW photograph and positively state that the driver is [defendant].” It is 

noteworthy that, during his discussion with respect to the question of the

unnecessary suggestiveness of the identification procedure, the trial justice did not 

explicitly state that the procedure was actually unnecessarily suggestive. In any 
- 29 -

event, the trial justice nonetheless proceeded to address the second step of the 

analysis. He explicitly stated that he “categorically and without hesitation”

determined that Mr. Perez’s identification was otherwise reliable. In coming to 

this conclusion, the trial justice went through the factors enunciated in Neil v. 

Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), and then made the following insightful case-specific 

statement:

“[A]ll four of the[] salient elements outlined in Gallop

and the Biggers case under the totality of the 

circumstances are readily satisfied.

“More than that, I would point to the testimony of

Mr. Perez during these proceedings, that when he called

the police on January 19, he did so precisely because of

his independent recollection of the events on Benevolent

Street on January 9, which he realized may have had

something to do with the shooting downtown. That

independent recollection was based on his own memory

before the police ever showed him any photographs.

“More than that, Mr. Perez testified that he has a

penchant, an ability for remembering people’s faces and

which ones go with which vehicles. It is, after all, what 

he does for a living. He’s a professional valet. He 

simply has a knack for remembering the connections

between a face and a car. It’s what he does. And I fully 

credit his testimony in this regard. He was not bragging 

or boasting. He was simply stating a fact about himself, 

and I believe him.”

Even though the trial justice never stated with specificity that the identification was 

or was not unnecessarily suggestive, we are more than satisfied that, based on his 

further clear and detailed explication about Mr. Perez’s talent for “remembering 
- 30 -

people’s faces,” even if the trial justice had found unnecessary suggestiveness, the 

trial justice’s determination that the identification was otherwise reliable was 

especially well-founded. Accordingly, we perceive no error whatsoever in the trial 

justice’s denial of the motion to suppress Mr. Perez’s eyewitness identification.

Nevertheless, while we do not hesitate to uphold the trial justice’s ruling 

about the eyewitness identification in this case, we believe that it is imperative to 

emphasize that we view as unfortunate the procedure employed by the 

investigating detectives—especially given the emphasis that the General Assembly 

has placed on improving the policies and procedures of law enforcement with 

respect to eyewitness identifications.21

C

Denial of the Motion to Recuse the Trial Justice

The defendant further contends that the trial justice erred by summarily 

denying defendant’s motion for recusal at the beginning of the third trial. The

defendant argues that the trial justice was prejudiced against him and should have 

21 Notably, during its 2010 session, the General Assembly enacted 

G.L. 1956 § 12-1-16, which created a task force charged with “develop[ing]

guidelines for policies, procedures and training with respect to the collection and 

handling of eyewitness evidence in criminal investigations by law enforcement 

agencies in Rhode Island.” Although we recognize that the final report produced 

by the task force pursuant to this statutory mandate is simply a guideline, we 

consider it to be of genuine importance that investigating officers constantly strive 

to avoid any unnecessary suggestiveness in the context of eyewitness 

identification.
- 31 -

recused himself because the trial justice had: (1) previously held defendant in 

contempt of court; (2) denied his request for a continuance to continue preparing 

his defense; (3) violated Rule 42 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal 

Procedure;

22 (4) tried to persuade defendant not to represent himself at trial; and 

(5) attempted to “goad” or “wheedle” him into agreeing to a mistrial. For the 

reasons set forth below, we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not err in 

denying defendant’s motion for recusal.

It is a well-settled principle that “judicial officers are duty-bound to recuse 

themselves if they are unable to render a fair or an impartial decision in a particular 

case.” Ryan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 941 A.2d 174, 185 (R.I. 

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Mattatall v. State, 947 A.2d 896, 902 

(R.I. 2008). However, “[i]t is an equally well-recognized principle that a trial 

justice has as great an obligation not to disqualify himself or herself when there is

22 Rule 42(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as 

follows: “A criminal contempt except as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule 

shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, 

allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the 

essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. 

The notice shall be given orally by the judicial officer in open court in the presence 

of the defendant or, on application of an attorney for the State or of an attorney 

appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of 

arrest. The defendant is entitled to admission to bail as provided in these rules. In 

a proceeding under this subdivision, if the contempt charged involves disrespect to 

or criticism of a judicial officer, that judicial officer is disqualified from presiding 

at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent. Upon a verdict or 

finding of guilt the court shall enter an order fixing the punishment.” (Emphasis 

added.)
- 32 -

no sound reason to do so * * *.” Kelly v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 

740 A.2d 1243, 1246 (R.I. 1999) (emphasis added); see Ryan, 941 A.2d at 185. 

We have stated that “[a] party seeking recusal must establish that the [trial] justice 

has a personal bias or prejudice by reason of a preconceived or settled opinion of a 

character calculated to impair his [or her] impartiality seriously and to sway his [or 

her] judgment.” Ryan, 941 A.2d at 185 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In the instant case, defendant has completely failed to show that the trial 

justice held any personal bias or prejudice against him so as to make the trial 

justice “duty-bound” to recuse himself. Id. First, although the trial justice held 

defendant in contempt of court during the second aborted trial, only two days later 

the trial justice, after a modicum of advocacy by defense counsel, purged the 

finding of contempt. After carefully reviewing the record, it is our view that the 

contempt finding was not a result of a “preconceived or settled opinion of 

[defendant’s] character * * *.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, the 

trial justice stated that, during the course of the proceedings before him, defendant

did not cooperate with the sheriffs; he uttered vulgarities directed at the court; he 

raised his voice; he was argumentative; and he interrupted the trial justice. We 

would further point out that, following the trial justice’s purging of the contempt 

finding, he also granted defendant a new trial in order to “protect [defendant] from 
- 33 -

any kind of adverse impression that the present jury might draw if we were to go 

forward as it has been conscripted * * *.”

Second, although the trial justice assented to defendant’s request to represent 

himself at the second aborted trial, he stated that he would not grant defendant’s 

request for a continuance of the proceedings because defendant had “spr[u]ng this 

on [him] at the last minute” and because there was “a jury upstairs that [the parties

had] begun to impanel * * * [and] other new jurors that [the parties were] going to 

use to finish the impanelment.” Given the timing of defendant’s decision to 

proceed pro se and his statements to the trial justice with respect to his assessment

of his own legal qualifications, we do not perceive the denial of the continuance as 

the product of any bias or prejudice, but rather as the product of the trial justice’s 

understanding that, in the interest of justice and judicial economy, he wanted the 

trial to proceed in a timely and efficient manner.

Third, in arguing that the trial justice must be precluded from presiding at 

his trial pursuant to Rule 42 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

defendant misconstrues the meaning of that rule. That rule states, in pertinent part,

that “[i]n a proceeding under this subdivision, if the contempt charged involves 

disrespect to or criticism of a judicial officer, that judicial officer is disqualified 

from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent.” Super. 

R. Crim. P. 42(b) (emphasis added). By cherry-picking language from the rule, 
- 34 -

defendant blatantly ignores the fact that the dictates of that rule apply only to 

“proceeding[s] under [that] subdivision”—in other words, contempt proceedings. 

Id. (emphasis added). We would point out that defendant was never subject to a 

Rule 42(b) proceeding before the trial justice; accordingly, the cited rule is not 

applicable to the case at bar. 

It is clear to us that, far from being prejudiced and biased, the actions taken 

by the trial justice were entirely appropriate and were, in fact, necessary so that a 

fair and just trial might be conducted. Accordingly, it is clear to us that the trial 

justice certainly did not err in deciding not to recuse himself from defendant’s 

case. See Ryan, 941 A.2d at 186; Kelly, 740 A.2d at 1246.

D

Denial of Defendant’s Right to Self-Representation

The defendant asserts on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to 

self-representation. He specifically argues: (1) that the trial justice “stymied” his 

attempts to prepare his own defense at trial; and (2) that the trial justice erred in 

denying him the right to represent himself during his sentencing hearing. For the

following reasons, we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not err in so

doing.

Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Faretta v. 

California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), “[t]he Sixth Amendment does not provide merely 
- 35 -

that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the 

right to make his defense.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 819. “The right to defend is given 

directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense 

fails.” Id. at 819-20. The Supreme Court has further stated that “[t]he pro se

defendant must be allowed to control the organization and content of his own 

defense, to make motions, to argue points of law, to participate in voir dire, to 

question witnesses, and to address the court and the jury at appropriate points in 

the trial.” McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 174 (1984). 

This Court has further noted that “a defendant may proceed pro se if he or 

she wishes only so long as the waiver of his or her right to counsel is valid.” State 

v. Withers, 172 A.3d 765, 771 (R.I. 2017) (emphasis added). “In order for a 

waiver to be valid, a defendant must waive his or her right to counsel voluntarily, 

knowingly, and intelligently.” State v. Cruz, 109 A.3d 381, 390 (R.I. 2015). To 

determine whether such a waiver was valid, “this Court employs a two-prong 

analysis * * *.” Id. First, we must “determine whether the waiver was 

‘voluntary * * *.’” Id. After that, “we must determine whether the waiver was 

‘knowing and intelligent.’” Id. We conduct this two-pronged inquiry in a de novo

manner, and we proceed by considering the “totality of the circumstances” as set 
- 36 -

forth in State v. Chabot, 682 A.2d 1377 (R.I. 1996).23 Id. at 390. We have stated 

that “[a] valid waiver is effective only if a defendant knows what he [or she] is 

doing and his [or her] choice is made with eyes open.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

The defendant has presented conflicting arguments. In his brief before this 

Court, defendant has conceded (1) that, at some point during his trial, he “had 

assumed the responsibilities of representing himself” and (2) that “[t]he trial court 

had finally[] acceded to [his] request for self-representation.” He also argues on 

appeal, however, that during the course of his attempt to represent himself at trial, 

23 In State v. Chabot, 682 A.2d 1377 (R.I. 1996), the Court set forth six factors 

that a trial justice may use as a guide in determining whether a defendant’s request 

to represent himself was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. See State 

v. Withers, 172 A.3d 765, 771 (R.I. 2017). The Court in Chabot, in the context of 

a probation violation hearing, stated that the following factors should be 

considered: 

“(1) the background, the experience, and the conduct of 

the defendant at the hearing, including his age, his 

education, and his physical and mental health; (2) the 

extent to which the defendant has had prior contact with 

lawyers before the hearing; (3) the defendant’s 

knowledge of the nature of the proceeding and the 

sentence that may potentially be reimposed; (4) the 

question of whether standby counsel has been appointed 

and the extent to which he or she has aided the defendant 

before or at the hearing; (5) the question of whether the 

waiver of counsel was the result of mistreatment or 

coercion; and (6) the question of whether the defendant is 

trying to manipulate the events of the hearing.” Chabot, 

682 A.2d at 1380.
- 37 -

“he presented the trial court with several motions, seeking the information that any 

attorney would have needed in order to be prepared to present a defense,” and that 

each motion was summarily denied, thereby stymying his ability to prepare his 

defense. In particular, defendant argues that, after he began representing himself, 

the trial justice erred by denying the following motions: his motion for a 

continuance; his motion to review the exhibits presented at the first trial; his

motion to preclude the state from calling Attorney Balkcom as a witness at 

subsequent trials; and his motion to receive the transcript of the sidebar conference

that was held during Attorney Balkcom’s testimony at the first trial. We are not 

persuaded by defendant’s argument.

The defendant fails to meaningfully explain how the trial justice’s denial of 

the just-referenced motions interfered with his ability to present his defense or 

otherwise control his case. Although a defendant has certain rights when

proceeding pro se, a defendant does not thereby acquire the right to obtain a 

favorable ruling on any or all of the motions that he or she presents to the court. 

See, e.g., McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 174 n.4, 181. We are satisfied that, in spite of 

defendant’s frequent and utterly inappropriate behavior towards the trial justice, 

the trial justice judiciously scrutinized each of defendant’s motions and provided 

explanations for his subsequent denials. In other words, defendant was not 

prevented from “hav[ing] his voice heard” in accordance with the Supreme Court’s 
- 38 -

teaching in McKaskle. Id. at 174. We are convinced that the trial justice in no way 

stymied defendant’s efforts to prepare and present a defense.

The defendant also asserts before this Court that the trial justice erred by 

denying him his right to self-representation at the time of the sentencing hearing. 

We recognize that the trial justice did, in fact, deny defendant the right to represent 

himself during the sentencing hearing. However, we have stated that a defendant’s 

right to represent himself or herself is valid only “so long as the waiver of his or 

her right to counsel is valid.” Withers, 172 A.3d at 771 (emphasis added). We 

perceive no reversible error in the trial justice’s assessment of the defendant’s 

overall conduct and performance in the various proceedings that ultimately led up 

to the sentencing hearing. And we, therefore, perceive no reversible error in the 

trial justice’s conclusion that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel at the 

sentencing hearing was simply not “valid.” Id. 

In responding to defendant’s request to proceed pro se at the sentencing 

hearing, the trial justice explicitly referenced both the two-prong test used to 

determine whether a waiver of counsel is voluntary as well as the six factors 

enumerated in Chabot. We find persuasive the trial justice’s determination that, 

based on defendant’s actions and conduct throughout the numerous proceedings 

before the Superior Court, it was clear that, at the time of the sentencing hearing, 

defendant did not “understand or appreciate the risks and disadvantages of trying 
- 39 -

to represent [himself], even though [the trial justice had] previously warned [him]

about the proverbial adage of having a fool for a client * * *.” Accordingly, we 

perceive no error in the trial justice’s express finding that “the two-part test to 

support an election to represent yourself has not at all been satisfied,” nor in his 

further statement that “[t]he attempt to waive counsel is not fully voluntary and it 

is certainly not knowing and intelligent.” In view of the trial justice’s findings and 

the record as a whole, we are of the opinion that defendant’s waiver of his right to 

counsel was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Accordingly, it is our view 

that the trial justice did not err in denying defendant the right to represent himself 

at the sentencing hearing. 

For these reasons, it is our view that defendant’s various arguments

concerning his right to self-representation are unavailing.

E

Evidentiary Rulings

1. The Introduction of the Composite Video

The defendant argues on appeal that the trial justice erred in allowing into

evidence “the composite videotape detailing the travels of the vehicles involved in 

the alleged chase scene on the roads surrounding the Providence Superior Court on 

January 9, 2017.” The defendant contends that “[t]he individual videotapes that 

were secured by the Providence Police Department used to create the composite 
- 40 -

video were never authenticated and no chain of custody was ever established for 

the introduction.” Contrary to defendant’s assertions, however, each of the 

individual videos, the composite video, and the “PowerPoint presentation” were 

authenticated and admitted as evidence with no objection having been interposed 

by defense counsel. For this reason, we are satisfied that this issue has not been 

properly preserved for appellate review. See State v. McManus, 990 A.2d 1229, 

1237 (R.I. 2010) (“According to our well settled raise or waive rule, if an issue was 

not preserved by specific objection at trial, then it may not be considered on 

appeal.”); see also State v. Kelly, 20 A.3d 655, 660 (R.I. 2011).

2. The Introduction of Rebuttal Testimony of 

Correctional Officer Jon Defilippis

The defendant contends that the trial justice erred in failing to provide the

jury with certain cautionary instructions following the testimony of a witness who 

was called upon to testify for the sole purpose of impeaching the testimony of 

Carlos Depina that he had never before seen defendant. Specifically, defendant

argues that, as a result of the testimony provided by Officer Defilippis, the jury 

became aware of defendant’s status as an inmate at the ACI, which impacted his 

right to a fair trial. Although defendant objected to the testimony of Officer 

Defilippis, at no point did he request that a cautionary instruction be given to the 

jury following such testimony. Since defendant did not request a cautionary

instruction or object to the fact that the trial justice did not give such an instruction, 
- 41 -

this issue is not properly preserved for appellate review. See State v. Garcia, 743 

A.2d 1038, 1053 (R.I. 2000).

IV

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the 

Superior Court. The record may be returned to that tribunal.
SU-CMS-02A (revised June 2020)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

Licht Judicial Complex

250 Benefit Street

Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case State v. Joseph Segrain.

Case Number SU-2018-144-C.A.

(P1/17-1236 AG)

Date Opinion Filed June 24, 2021

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and 

Long, JJ.

Written By Associate Justice William P. Robinson III

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Robert D. Krause

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For State:

Owen Murphy

Department of Attorney General

For Defendant:

Christopher S. Gontarz, Esq.