Opinion ID: 1924405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant next contends that the trial justice erroneously denied his motion for a new trial on the robbery count because, he argues, the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole money or property from Koch's person, an essential element of robbery. In ruling on a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial justice acts as a thirteenth juror and exercises independent judgment on the credibility of witnesses and on the weight of the evidence. State v. Stansell, 909 A.2d 505, 511 (R.I.2006) (quoting State v. Davis, 877 A.2d 642, 646 (R.I.2005)). When the trial justice has articulated a sufficient rationale for his or her decision to deny a defendant's motion for a new trial, that decision will be given great weight. Arroyo, 844 A.2d at 173 (quoting State v. Ramirez, 786 A.2d 368, 372-73 (R.I.2001)). In this case, after hearing Stone's argument and noting that there was no direct evidence that defendant took the $100 bill discovered at the scene, the trial justice found that there was ample circumstantial evidence that Stone took the money from Koch's shirt. The $100 bill was found in the area where the struggle occurred, outside the rear entrance to Capriccio's, and loose money was found throughout the restaurant. Noting that the $100 bill was found in the vicinity of other materials belonging to this defendant, including his backpack, the trial justice found that the jury could properly draw an inference that defendant took the money after he shot Koch. It is well established that [i]nferences and presumptions are a staple of our adversary system of factfinding. State v. Ventre, 910 A.2d 190, 198 n. 5 (R.I.2006). This Court previously has held that the test for determining whether circumstantial evidence meets the burden of proof in a criminal trial is whether the evidence constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt or if it raises merely a conjecture or suspicion of guilt. State v. Kaba, 798 A.2d 383, 393 (R.I.2002). Under this test, it is possible for the state to prove guilt by a process of logical deduction, reasoning from an established circumstantial fact through a series of inferences to the ultimate conclusion of guilt. Id. (quoting State v. Caruolo, 524 A.2d 575, 581-82 (R.I.1987)). In arguing for a new trial, defendant asserts that the state utilized an impermissible pyramiding of inferences to establish the elements of first-degree robbery. We are satisfied that in finding that the state produced ample circumstantial evidence to support a conviction for first-degree robbery, the trial justice appropriately exercised his independent judgment; he did not overlook or misconceive material evidence, and he was not clearly wrong. We are of the opinion that the state established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a process of logical deduction, reasoning from an established circumstantial fact and did not merely raise[] a suspicion or conjecture of guilt. Kaba, 798 A.2d at 393.