Opinion ID: 2423632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of the Map of Woonsocket

Text: At trial, defendant sought to introduce a map of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, which depicted Cold Spring Park as well as defendant's former home, on Winter Street. The map at issue appears to have been printed from the YELLOWPAGES.COM website; however, the exhibit does not depict the entire City of Woonsocket. Rather, it portrays Cold Spring Park. Further, the location described as defendant's house was marked by hand. Phannavong sought to demonstrate that the home on Winter Street was the only place he had lived that was near Cold Spring Park, and that home had been foreclosed in 1997two years before the alleged incident that Jane testified to. After the map was marked for identification, the state objected to its admission as a full exhibit, arguing that it could not be authenticated properly. At a conference at sidebar, the trial justice noted that the map was not a self-authenticating document. He stated, anybody could come in with a document and say, `Oh, I pulled this up from the [i]nternet.' How do I know [it is] right? In excluding the exhibit, the trial justice reasoned that defendant had been permitted to testify as to this diagram. He's told us how far that house was from the park. I think beyond that, unless you [have] something to substantiate the veracity of this document, I don't think he is the person that can testify to it[.] The trial justice sustained the state's objection and did not allow the map to be admitted as a full exhibit. It is well established that this Court reviews a trial justice's ruling to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Marmolejos, 990 A.2d 848, 851 (R.I.2010). Before this Court, defendant argues that a demonstrative aid such as a map is relevant and admissible because it explains live testimony; and, defendant argues, it is authenticated simply by the witness's testimony that it is a fair and accurate depiction of what he or she is attempting to describe. The defendant also cites to State v. Greene, 74 R.I. 437, 443-44, 60 A.2d 711, 715 (1948), in which this Court held: The rule is well established that maps illustrating the scenes of the commission of a crime and the relative location of streets or objects, if shown to be reasonably accurate, are admissible in evidence in order to enable the jury properly to understand and apply the evidence to the particular case. (Emphasis added.) However, defendant overlooks key language from Greene requiring that the map be shown to be reasonably accurate. Id. at 443, 60 A.2d at 715. The document at issue in this case lacks even minimal indicia of reliability, such as a notation of the scale to which the map was drawn or a Compass Rose indicating direction. Without being properly authenticatedother than by defendant's opinion that the map is an accurate depiction according to his memorythe map's reliability was not established, and it cannot be said that the trial justice abused his discretion by excluding it.