Opinion ID: 1560059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Drive By Incident

Text: Amanda testified that on November 16, 2004 she, received a phone call at the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center from defendant, who told her that he had been asked to leave a group-counseling session on the previous evening, that he was having financial trouble, and that he, in Amanda's words, didn't see the problem of not going to group, not paying, not doing what he was supposed to. Toward the end of their phone conversation, Amanda testified, defendant indicated to her that he was, at that very moment, driving by the home of his counselors. As she recalled that conversation in the course of testifying at the hearing, Amanda said that defendant's comment was along the lines of the following: Oh, look. Isn't that nice? He must be home resting. Amanda indicated in her testimony that it was her understanding that the home to which defendant was referring during that phone call was the home of therapists Travis and Lisa Merrell. [3] Amanda testified that she immediately advised the Merrells of the fact that defendant had driven by their house because [Amanda] feared for their safety and because she was very concerned and considered it inappropriate that a client knew the home address of a clinician. She testified during cross-examination that her evaluation of the situation and her subsequent response to it at that point resulted from her perception that defendant was aggressive and had made statements and had written letters (to probation officer Gerald Silva as well as to herself) that she considered to be passive aggressive. The state called as a witness one of defendant's therapists, one Travis Merrell, a clinician who offers sex-offender treatment in affiliation with the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center. Mr. Merrell testified that he had been working as a clinician since 1997 and with sex offenders since 1999. He further testified that, when individuals are recommended to the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center by the Probation and Parole Department, such individuals are required to become clients of the center and to attend counseling there. The defendant was one such person recommended by the Probation and Parole Department, and Mr. Merrell testified that he first became acquainted with defendant in the month of July 2003. As part of the counseling process with Mr. Merrell, defendant engaged in group drama therapy. In his testimony, Mr. Merrell described this type of therapy as follows: [D]rama therapy is the use of drama and theater techniques to do the same thing that people do with talk therapy. It's aimed specifically as you can get to the emotional underpinnings of their deviancy and behaviors.    One of the first things that a [sex offender] has to do    in a group is do a walk through of their offense. That consists of describing what you were convicted of, the sentence and details of the crime.    The second step would be to address what led up to the deviant fantasy, for instance, what sparked the behavior.    A third step would be reenactment of the crime.    I mean to take the person back to the moment to describe step by step the events that occurred, how he assaulted or inappropriately touched or raped    a victim. Mr. Merrell testified that defendant's attendance at counseling was sporadic and that there were often gaps in his attendance based on medical difficulties   . Mr. Merrell acknowledged that some of those medical problems were very serious, but he stated that he had not seen any documentation of defendant's medical problems or treatment. Mr. Merrell testified that, from July until November of 2003, defendant had attended counseling sessions off and on probably about half the time and that, around November of 2003, he lost track of defendant until he began attending counseling again in April of 2004. Mr. Merrell testified that from April of 2004 to November of 2004 defendant's attendance at counseling was [a]gain, irregular and when he did show up, we didn't get to do a lot of work. Mr. Merrell opined in his testimony that the lack of progress in the counseling sessions was due to defendant's resistance, denial. He elaborated by saying that, [i]n terms of denial, we would start to talk about the crime of conviction and he would become very angry, sometimes provocative in his behavior towards the others. According to Mr. Merrell's testimony, his clinical relationship with defendant terminated in November of 2004. During a particular counseling session in that month, he and defendant had a disagreement after defendant denied the seriousness of the events and he got abusive    and challenged] and questioned [Mr. Merrell's] skills, [his] wife's skills   . Mr. Merrell and his wife then asked defendant to leave the session. On the following day, November 16, 2004, Mr. Merrell received a call from Amanda regarding what defendant had told her about driving by the Merrells' house; he testified that he felt that defendant was stalking him and that he felt threatened. Mr. Merrell testified on cross-examination that he made a report about the incident to the police in Barrington, the town where he resided and where the drive by incident occurred. The defendant opted to testify at the violation hearing, and he offered his version of the drive by incident. In defendant's direct testimony during the hearing, he explained that he had probably spent one third of [his] life in Barrington and was very active in that town. The defendant testified that he had tried to speak to Amanda on the phone earlier on the day of the drive by incident, November 16, 2004. He testified that he had gone to visit a former neighbor of his at the YMCA in Barrington; he added that, when he did not find her there, he went to a Dunkin' Donuts coffee shop to purchase a cup of coffee. From there, defendant testified, he drove to a CVS store to peruse a copy of the Barrington Times for job advertisements due to the fact that he was considering relocating to that area. The defendant further testified that he drove from CVS to a supermarket and then to a country club to visit an old friend. The defendant testified that, upon his arrival at the club, he was shocked to learn that his old friend had died between two and a half to three years earlier. Upset by the news of his friend's death, defendant testified that he then went to the grounds of a local monastery and thereafter walked to Barrington Beach in order to soak up some fresh salt air to get in [his] lungs and straighten [him] out. He testified that, when he left the beach area in his car, a UPS or Federal Express truck was blocking the route that he had intended to take; he added that, while making a detour as a result of the blockage, he noticed Mr. Merrell's car, which he recognized from group meetings. The defendant testified that he did not know prior to seeing Mr. Merrell's car that his counselors resided in Barrington; he stated that he had previously assumed that Mr. Merrell lived in Bridgewater, Massachusetts because the counselor had mentioned that town a number of times. The defendant testified that, after seeing Mr. Merrell's car, he placed a call to Amanda, for the third time that day, from a public phone booth located on Route 114 in Warren, Rhode Island. The defendant testified that he and Amanda discussed the possibility of his resuming counseling with a different counselor. According to defendant's testimony, his statements to Amanda regarding the drive by incident were limited to (1) the fact that he had seen Mr. Merrell's car and (2) his observation to Amanda that many people on Mr. Merrell's street had been raking leaves that day and (3) his inference that because everybody was raking leaves I guess he [Mr. Merrell] was resting   . He testified that what he said to Amanda was meant as a friendly comment more than anything else. As for the expression drive by, defendant stated in the course of his testimony: I reject that term very vehemently. With respect to the drive by incident, defendant's probation officer, Gerald Silva, testified that defendant admitted to him that he had driven by the Merrells' house. Mr. Silva related in his testimony that defendant had told him that he had learned that his friend had died and that he had perused the newspaper advertisements. Mr. Silva further testified that defendant participated in one more counseling session at the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center after the drive by incident occurred, but that it did not go well. Mr. Silva recalled in his testimony that he then advised defendant that he needed to get back with    another group or he had to find another agency to go to the counseling with. C