Opinion ID: 1966794
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Werner's Previous Appeals to this Court

Text: After being transferred, pursuant to the IADA, to Rhode Island from a Massachusetts prison in the summer of 1993, Werner faced four separate trials resulting in multiple convictions. He appealed all four convictions to this Court, including the present appeal, alleging various points of reversible error. Werner's first post-conviction appeal, State v. Werner, 831 A.2d 183 (R.I.2003) ( Werner I ), stems from the Johnny Ray's incident, and Werner's convictions of assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and possession of a loaded weapon in a vehicle. This Court denied Werner's appeal on multiple grounds. Of particular note in Werner I were defendant's contentions that the trial justice improperly denied his motion to dismiss based on violations of the IADA, and committed reversible error when he instructed the jury on matters of eyewitness identification. In Werner I, we articulated, at great length, the proper methods of applying the IADA, as well as its function and purpose. The IADA is a compact among a number of participating states    designed to expedite the trial of criminal charges pending in one state (the receiving state) while the person is incarcerated in another state (the sending state). Werner I, 831 A.2d at 191. Werner argued to the trial justice, and on appeal to this Court, that Rhode Island violated provisions of the IADA by failing to bring him to trial within the time frames required by the act. Denying Werner's appeal and affirming the trial justice's denial of Werner's motion to dismiss, this Court concluded that the trial justice was correct in his findings of fact and law as they applied to the IADA. We held that there had been no violation of the IADA, that the writ of habeas corpus issued by a Rhode Island Superior Court justice did not trigger the IADA clock, and that Werner had frustrated his own return to Rhode Island to face charges here for tactical reasons. [1] Werner I, 831 A.2d at 194. On the issue of jury instructions regarding photo arrays, we likewise denied Werner's appeal. Werner argued that the trial justice's instructions were unfair comments on the evidence, and as such, constituted reversible error. [2] Although we agreed wholeheartedly with Werner that the trial justice must be unscrupulously fair and must neither infringe on the fact-finding province of the jury nor advocate for either the prosecution or the defense, we failed to see the error in the trial justice's instructions. [3] See id. at 205. Instead, we held that the charge, taken from a set of model instructions adopted in the federal courts, merely articulated some general guidelines that would apply to any consideration of eyewitness identification by a jury. Id. As such, the instruction was not unfair, did not indicate any opinion on the part of the trial justice, and did not constitute prejudicial error. Id. This Court denied Werner's second appeal within weeks of Werner I. In State v. Werner, 830 A.2d 1107 (R.I.2003) ( Werner II ), the defendant appealed from his conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon arising out of a prison altercation. On appeal, Werner argued that his charges should have been dismissed for failure to bring the case to trial within the time frame established in the IADA, that the trial justice erred by declining to grant a mistrial based on certain testimony, and that the trial justice committed reversible error when he ruled that evidence of Werner's previous acts of violence would be admissible if Werner asserted self-defense. Although we denied his appeal on all grounds, it is of particular importance that we relied solely on our decision in Werner I to refute the defendant's contention that he had been brought to trial in violation of the IADA. [4] In his next appeal to this Court, Werner again asserted that violations of the IADA warranted reversal of his convictions for crimes committed in Rhode Island. In State v. Werner, 851 A.2d 1093 (R.I.2004) ( Werner III ), the defendant appealed from his convictions of robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and larceny emanating from his attack on the pregnant woman and her mother outside of a local bank. [5] Aside from his IADA-based appeal, Werner appealed, among other issues, the trial justice's refusal to allow expert testimony about eyewitness testimony, and the court's rejection of the defendant's request for a court-funded polygraph test. This Court again denied Werner's appeal on all grounds. On the IADA issue, we emphasized that despite Werner's unrelenting contention that Rhode Island had failed to transport him here from Massachusetts within the time frame prescribed by the act, and that his subsequent Rhode Island convictions demand reversal, his claims are collaterally estopped. Because the issues before us now are identical to those in Werner I and Werner II, and Werner was a party in all three cases, and final judgment was reached in Werner I and Werner II, defendant is barred by collateral estoppel from bringing this claim.    Therefore, as defendant concedes, our previous holdings are controlling and the trial justice's denial of defendant's request to dismiss under the act is affirmed. Werner III, 851 A.2d at 1109-10. In his present appeal to this Court, Werner argues for a reversal of his 1993 convictions issuing from the West Warwick Credit Union robbery. Werner now appeals on several grounds, including the trial justice's failure to dismiss the case for the state's failure to bring him to trial within the mandatory time frames specified in the IADA, and the trial justice's allegedly erroneous jury instructions concerning eyewitness identification. For the reasons stated below, we deny and dismiss defendant's appeal.