Opinion ID: 2823201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial
As we have repeatedly stated, “[w]e accord great weight to a trial justice’s ruling on a motion for a new trial if he or she has articulated sufficient reasoning in support of the ruling.” State v. Hie, 93 A.3d 963, 975 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Lake, 90 A.3d 186, 193 (R.I. 2014); see also State v. Day, 925 A.2d 962, 983-84 (R.I. 2007). As such, we shall not disturb a trial justice’s decision on a motion for a new trial “unless we determine that the trial justice committed clear error or that he or she overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence [relating] to a critical issue in the case.” State v. DiCarlo, 987 A.2d 867, 871 (R.I. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Payette, 38 A.3d 1120, 1127 (R.I. 2012); see also State v. Harrison, 66 A.3d 432, 445 (R.I. 2013). When reviewing a trial justice’s denial of a motion for a new trial, “we do not focus on whether this Court simply agrees or 7 It is important to note that, in addition to arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, defendant states that the testimony at trial was “legally insufficient to support a verdict of guilt   .” This Court has explained that there are important differences between a motion for a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence and a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence. See State v. Clark, 974 A.2d 558, 569-71 (R.I. 2009); see also State v. Karngar, 29 A.3d 1232, 1235 (R.I. 2011). However, the just-quoted statement by defendant is his only reference to a motion for a new trial based upon the insufficiency of the evidence. Moreover, he proceeds to provide the Court with only the standard of review relevant to a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, this Court deems any argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence waived and will focus solely on whether the trial justice properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon the weight of the evidence. See Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Commission, 788 A.2d 1129, 1131 n. 1 (R.I. 2002) (“Simply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”); see also Horton v. Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115, 1130 (R.I. 2011); State v. Chase, 9 A.3d 1248, 1256 (R.I. 2010). - 13 - disagrees with the trial justice’s credibility determinations,” but rather we are “deferential to those determinations[;]    we will not overturn that decision unless the trial justice has overlooked or misconceived material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong.” State v. Clay, 79 A.3d 832, 842 (R.I. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hie, 93 A.3d at 975. Especially relevant to the instant case, we note that “[t]his Court affords a great deal of respect to the factual determinations and credibility assessments made by the judicial officer who has actually observed the human drama that is part and parcel of every trial and who has had an opportunity to appraise witness demeanor and to take into account other realities that cannot be grasped from a reading of a cold record.” State v. Paola, 59 A.3d 99, 106 (R.I. 2013) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Kizekai, 19 A.3d 583, 589 (R.I. 2011); see also DiCarlo, 987 A.2d at 872. When ruling on a motion for a new trial, the trial justice sits in the role of the metaphorical “thirteenth juror;” and, in that role, the trial justice must “exercise[] independent judgment on the credibility of witnesses and on the weight of the evidence.” State v. Barrios, 88 A.3d 1123, 1128 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Baker, 79 A.3d 1267, 1273 (R.I. 2013); State v. Rosario, 35 A.3d 938, 947 (R.I. 2012); State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759, 765 (R.I. 2011). We have repeatedly recognized that “[i]n fulfilling his or her role as the thirteenth juror and passing on a motion for a new trial, the trial justice must (1) consider the evidence in light of the jury charge, (2) independently assess the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and then (3) determine whether he or she would have reached a result different from that reached by the jury.” Hie, 93 A.3d at 974 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Silva, 84 A.3d 411, 416 (R.I. 2014); State v. Mitchell, 80 A.3d 19, 30 (R.I. 2013); State v. Espinal, 943 A.2d 1052, 1058 (R.I. 2008). After carrying out this three-step - 14 - analytical process, if “the trial justice agrees with the jury’s verdict or determines that reasonable minds could differ, then the analysis is complete and the verdict should be affirmed.” Harrison, 66 A.3d at 445 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Bunnell, 47 A.3d 220, 232 (R.I. 2012); Kizekai, 19 A.3d at 590. However, if the trial justice “does not agree with the verdict or does not agree that reasonable minds could differ, then the trial justice must determine whether the verdict is against the fair preponderance of the evidence and fails to do substantial justice.” Lake, 90 A.3d at 193 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Harrison, 66 A.3d at 445. We have stated that, when ruling on a motion for a new trial, the “record should reflect a few sentences of the justice’s reasoning on each point.” Rosario, 35 A.3d at 947 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Silva, 84 A.3d at 417. Nonetheless, we continually apply the principle that, in providing the rationale for his or her decision, a trial justice need not “refer to all the evidence supporting the decision; rather, he or she need only cite evidence sufficient to allow this [C]ourt to discern whether the justice has applied the appropriate standards.” State v. Robat, 49 A.3d 58, 71 (R.I. 2012) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also DiCarlo, 987 A.2d at 870.
Mr. Virola contends that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial “because Patricia Gallardo, David Mercado and Martin White were all biased witnesses with motivation to lie   .” With respect to Ms. Gallardo, he argues that “[i]t was clearly in her interest to do anything to make sure Virola never again saw the light of day, as he was the one impediment to her enjoying the rest of her life with [Alice] and [Aaron].” As for Mr. Mercado’s testimony, defendant avers that Mr. Mercado’s testimony was not credible for two reasons: (1) the fact that Mr. Mercado entered into a cooperation agreement with the state in exchange for a - 15 - particularly light sentence; and (2) the fact that Mr. Mercado admitted to repeatedly using marijuana on the day of the robbery and, according to defendant, being “stoned at the time of the commission of the crime.” Moreover, defendant states that Mr. Mercado’s testimony was also unreliable because he initially lied to the police about his own involvement in the crime and was “coming off the effects of marijuana” when he finally told the police about the crime and identified the other individuals involved, including defendant. Lastly, when addressing Mr. White’s testimony, defendant claims that it too was unworthy of credence because Mr. White entered into a cooperation agreement with the state. Moreover, according to defendant, Mr. White had access to all of the discovery in the case, including Mr. Mercado’s statement, before making his statement to police; defendant posits that it was in Mr. White’s best interest to be sure his statement matched the other evidence and accounts of the crime. Thus, it is defendant’s overall contention that “[n]one of these witnesses were worthy of belief.” Our review begins by analyzing the decision of the trial justice to determine whether he followed the proper procedure in addressing defendant’s motion for a new trial. The trial justice began with the first step in a new trial analysis and analyzed the evidence in light of the jury charge. After detailing the jury charge, the trial justice then discussed the fact that the state had called twelve witnesses, and he added that the state had never set out to prove that defendant personally shot Mr. Nelson; rather, it was the trial justice’s observation that “[w]hat the State intended, and what the proof of the State targeted, was to prove that Defendant Virola was vicariously responsible for the offenses, either as a co-conspirator or as an aider and abettor.” The trial justice stated that there was “no question that the State easily proved that a felony murder was committed during the course of the attempted robbery.” Moreover, he noted that - 16 - there was also “no question that the State easily proved that a conspiracy was afoot in connection with these individuals to commit that robbery.” Next, the trial justice moved on to the second step in the analytical process relative to a motion for a new trial and independently assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. With respect to the three above-referenced witnesses, it was the opinion of the trial justice that “[t]heir credibility was severely tested by cross-examination, and all of their warts and wrinkles were clearly exposed.” He proceeded to state: “It’s clear    that this jury accepted the testimony of all three [of the witnesses at issue]. The credibility issues are, after all, quintessentially entrusted to jurors. I cannot at all fault the jurors for having found all three of these witnesses credible. As a front-row observer, I did too. Frankly, the testimony of [Mr.] White and [Mr.] Mercado was sufficient and credible by itself to convict the defendant. “When one adds to that Vicky Gallardo’s testimony, there simply was no way that this defendant was going to escape conviction[;]    and his later acknowledgment to Vicky that, ‘I am the way I am because I’m wanted,’ was damning evidence indeed.” The trial justice went on to discuss the fact that evidence of defendant’s flight and living under an assumed name was admissible as evidence of “consciousness of guilt.” Finally, moving on to the third step in the new trial analysis, the trial justice concluded as follows: “There is no question in my mind that Defendant Ramon Virola, aka Benny Delgado, was a key participant in this fatal escapade that resulted in the shooting death of Christopher Nelson. In fact, from the credible evidence before me, it was Defendant Virola who orchestrated obtaining the pistol that ultimately caused Mr. Nelson’s death. The evidence against Mr. Virola was indeed overwhelming. “The jury’s verdict, which was returned with alacrity, is not a reflection of their giving short shrift to defendant’s interests in this case. Rather, it is a testament to the mountainous credible - 17 - evidence that proved Virola’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts.” Thus, the trial justice agreed with the jury’s verdict and, consequently, denied defendant’s motion for a new trial. See State v. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d 1022, 1028 (R.I. 2007) (“If the trial justice concludes that he or she would have reached the same result as the jury did or that reasonable minds could differ as to the result, the motion for a new trial must be denied.”). On appeal, defendant is essentially asking this Court to second-guess the credibility determinations of the trial justice. The defendant points specifically to the following: (1) the fact that Ms. Gallardo had reason to want defendant out of her life and that of her son; (2) the fact that Mr. Mercado testified in exchange for a light sentence and was under the influence of marijuana when the crime occurred; and (3) the fact that, according to defendant, it was in Mr. White’s best interest to make a statement consistent with that of Mr. Mercado. However, as the trial justice aptly noted, all of those facts about the witnesses were known to the jury. Ms. Gallardo acknowledged that she considered defendant to be a “bad guy,” but she also testified to the fact that defendant loved his son and provided for both her and Aaron during the time when she was living with defendant; she stated that she stayed with defendant despite his “possessive” behavior and did not seek help from the police or family. She further testified that she went to the police about defendant only after she and Aaron had moved in with her new significant other in Chino Valley. In fact, on cross-examination, she acknowledged that she just “wanted [defendant] to stay    far away from [her] happy family that [she was] developing.” Thus, the jury was aware of the alleged credibility issues with respect to Ms. Gallardo’s testimony that defendant raises on appeal. Likewise, the jury was aware of the facts that defendant raises on appeal that weigh against Mr. Mercado being found to be a credible witness. Mr. Mercado testified that he had - 18 - smoked marijuana multiple times on the day of the crime and was “stoned” at the time the crime took place. Moreover, he acknowledged in his testimony that, when he gave his statement to the police and identified defendant as a participant in the crimes at issue, he was, in defendant’s words, “coming off the effects of marijuana.” Additionally, not only did Mr. Mercado testify regarding his agreement with the state and regarding the relatively lenient sentence that he received, but also, on direct examination, the prosecutor took him through that agreement paragraph by paragraph, asking whether he had agreed to each “paragraph.” Furthermore, on cross-examination, Mr. Mercado acknowledged that he “agreed to cooperate ultimately to save [his] own neck” and “minimize the harm” that would befall him. Lastly, with respect to Mr. White’s testimony, the jury was aware of the fact that he was testifying in exchange for a more lenient sentence pursuant to an agreement with the state. Just as the prosecutor had done with Mr. Mercado, he walked Mr. White through every paragraph of his agreement in front of the jury, asking him if it accurately reflected the agreement he had made.8 On recross-examination, Mr. White testified that, prior to giving his statement, he had the opportunity to review “supplemental discovery,” which included Mr. Mercado’s statements. Mr. White then responded in the affirmative when he was asked: “And you decided that in order to get the best deal, you better give consistent information to that which [Mr.] Mercado had provided; right?” Thus, the jury was aware of all the information which defendant argues demonstrated the lack of credibility of Mr. White’s testimony. In spite of the just-discussed testimonial evidence that potentially could raise doubts in the minds of the jurors as to the credibility of Ms. Gallardo, Mr. Mercado, and Mr. White, the jury nonetheless convicted defendant. What is more, the trial justice found all three witnesses to 8 We further note that Mr. White’s extensive criminal record was also brought to the attention of the jury. - 19 - be credible and agreed with the jury’s verdict. We have “repeatedly stated that ‘[t]he mere fact that [a] defendant disagrees with the trial justice’s conclusions about credibility is not a sufficient basis to warrant the granting of a motion for [a] new trial.’” Silva, 84 A.3d at 418 (quoting State v. Ferreira, 21 A.3d 355, 367 (R.I. 2011)). Accordingly, given the fact that we have no reason to quarrel with the trial justice’s execution of the correct three-step analytical approach to a motion for a new trial and his ultimate agreement with the jury’s verdict, it is clear to us that he did not overlook or misconceive material evidence and was not otherwise clearly wrong in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
The Admissibility of Ms. Gallardo’s Testimony
As we have reiterated on numerous occasions, “[d]ecisions about the admissibility of evidence on relevancy grounds are left to the sound discretion of the trial justice [and] this Court will not disturb those decisions on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Moreno, 996 A.2d 673, 683 (R.I. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Thomas, 936 A.2d 1278, 1281 (R.I. 2007); State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 504 (R.I. 2004). Additionally, we have stated that this Court “will not reverse a trial justice’s ruling admitting evidence over a Rule 403 objection unless it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I. 2012). Furthermore, it is well settled that we will not hold that a trial justice has “abused his or her discretion as long as some grounds supporting his or her decision appear in the record.” State v. Evans, 742 A.2d 715, 719 (R.I. 1999); see Thomas, 936 A.2d at 1283 (“Although [the abuse of discretion standard] is a stringent test, our jurisprudence illustrates that it does not insulate every ruling made by a trial justice.”). When reviewing a ruling under the - 20 - abuse of discretion standard, we “examine the ruling to ensure that the trial justice’s discretion has been soundly and judicially exercised,    with just regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law.” Selwyn v. Ward, 879 A.2d 882, 887 (R.I. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Kennedy, 814 A.2d 364, 365 (R.I. 2002) (mem.).
The defendant contends that Ms. Gallardo’s testimony with respect to defendant’s behavior during their relationship was admitted in error because “the unfair prejudice of [the] testimony greatly outweighed its slight probative value.” The defendant has provided this Court with a list of statements in which he contends Ms. Gallardo inappropriately testified to his “controlling behavior;” specifically that she testified that defendant “wanted to know everything she was doing and who she was talking to,” was “possessive,” and never let her take his photograph.9 The defendant avers that the evidence was not relevant under Rule 401 of the 9 The following is the full list of statements by Ms. Gallardo which defendant, in his brief to this Court, contends are at issue: “(1) That Mr. Virola wanted to know everything she was doing and who she was talking to    ; “(2) That Mr. Virola never let Ms. Gallardo take a photograph of him    ; “(3) That Mr. Virola would not let Ms. Gallardo move out of their home, and that he was blackmailing her to prevent this    ; “(4) That Ms. Gallardo told Mr. Virola that she was ending their relationship because he was being possessive and paranoid    ; “(5) That the reason Mr. Virola moved out of their apartment during the summer of 2011 was because he struck her during an argument    ; “(6) That she returned home to [the house she had previously shared with defendant] one evening to find her property destroyed    ; [and] “(7) That on the night she decided to go to the police to reveal Mr. Virola’s status as being ‘wanted,’ she was receiving text messages and photographs from Mr. Virola indicating that he knew where she lived and that he was coming for her   .” - 21 - Rhode Island Rules of Evidence “as it did not make it more or less likely that [defendant] participated in the conspiracy to rob” Mr. Nelson’s apartment. The defendant further posits that, even if the testimony were relevant, its admission should have been barred by the provisions of Rule 403 because “[t]he distinct possibility existed that the jurors would be so disturbed by learning that Mr. Virola exhibited possessive, controlling or manipulative behaviors that they would reach an impermissible conclusion about his character and find him guilty based on improper character evidence.”10 The defendant claims that the only purpose served by the statements at issue was “to depict Mr. Virola as a violent individual who engaged in a pattern of domestic abuse during his relationship with Ms. Gallardo.” In response, the state argues that Of the seven statements, the ones numbered (1), (2), and (4) were made during Ms. Gallardo’s direct testimony; the statement numbered (3) was made on cross-examination; and the statements numbered (5), (6), and (7) were made on redirect examination. The statements numbered (1) and (2) were properly preserved, as was the use of the word “possessive” to describe defendant in statement number (4). However, the remaining statements are not properly before us. With respect to statement number (4), defendant objected to the use of the word “paranoid” and that word was stricken from the record by the trial justice. See State v. Payano, 528 A.2d 721, 726 (R.I. 1987). After statement number (3), defendant did not move to strike Ms. Gallardo’s response to his questions or request a cautionary instruction; therefore, defendant’s appeal as to that statement was not properly preserved. See State v. Lyons, 725 A.2d 271, 275 (R.I. 1999) (holding that when, during cross-examination, “[d]efense counsel made no motion to strike the response nor requested any cautionary instruction    the trial justice committed no error” in allowing the testimony). Addressing statement number (5), defendant specifically stated at trial: “I don’t object to this. It’s fine. I’m not raising an objection.” See State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101, 1107 (R.I. 1999) (“Another basic rule of our appellate practice is that this [C]ourt will not review objections that were not raised at trial.”). With respect to statement number (6), defendant did not object. See id. Therefore, part of statement number (4) and the statements in numbers (3), (5), and (6) are not appropriately before us. Accordingly, we shall address only those statements, referenced in the text (and reflected in the statements numbered (1), (2), and (4)), which are properly before us for review. We shall discuss the statement numbered (7) in more depth in the text, infra. 10 The above quotation contains the only passing reference in defendant’s brief to Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, which rule governs the admission of character evidence. The state, in its brief, does address a Rule 404(b) argument; however, defendant’s mere reference to character evidence is not sufficient to raise the issue on appeal. Accordingly, any argument with respect to Rule 404(b) is deemed to be waived. See Wilkinson, 788 A.2d at 1131 n. 1; see also Horton, 22 A.3d at 1130; Chase, 9 A.3d at 1256. - 22 - “the admission of [Ms.] Gallardo’s testimony represented a sound exercise of the trial justice’s discretion.” Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Rule 402 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence further states that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by    other rules applicable in the courts of this state.” Finally, Rule 403 sets forth the criteria for the exclusion of relevant evidence; it provides as follows: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” We shall address defendant’s contentions under Rule 401 and Rule 403 in turn.
The defendant first contends that the specific statements of Ms. Gallardo regarding his controlling behavior and refusal to be photographed were not relevant under Rule 401. This Court has stated that “[i]nherent in Rule 401 are two basic facets of relevant evidence-materiality and probativeness    [and] [i]f the evidence is offered to help prove a proposition that is not a matter in issue, the evidence is immaterial    [and] should be excluded.” Thomas, 936 A.2d at 1282 (internal quotation marks omitted). We are unable to detect any abuse of discretion in the trial justice’s decision to admit Ms. Gallardo’s testimony. Ms. Gallardo specifically stated that defendant told her that his behavior was a result of being “wanted” by the State of Rhode Island. That fact had an obvious tendency to show that the individual living as “Benny Delgado” in Arizona was in fact defendant, Ramon Virola. Moreover, it helped illustrate defendant’s - 23 - consciousness of guilt. Therefore, we hold that defendant’s contention that Ms. Gallardo’s statements were not relevant is not persuasive.
The defendant next contends that, even if Ms. Gallardo’s statements were relevant, the trial justice erred in failing to exclude them pursuant to Rule 403. Rule 403 requires a balancing test; the trial justice must weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial nature. See Brown, 42 A.3d at 1244. However, “there exists no precise formula for determining the prejudicial effect of a statement.” State v. Dyer, 813 A.2d 71, 74 (R.I. 2003). Moreover, the discretion to exclude evidence pursuant to Rule 403 “must be exercised sparingly,” Brown, 42 A.3d at 1244 (internal quotation marks omitted), and “only when [the] evidence demonstrate[s] mere marginal relevance and enormous unfair prejudice should the trial justice exclude it.” State v. Bishop, 68 A.3d 409, 422 (R.I. 2013); see also State v. DeJesus, 947 A.2d 873, 883 (R.I. 2008); Wells v. Uvex Winter Optical, Inc., 635 A.2d 1188, 1193 (R.I. 1994). This Court has applied a standard which “asks whether [the evidence] will inflame the jurors and therefore prejudice them beyond the ordinary prejudice that is always sustained by the introduction of relevant evidence intended to prove guilt.” State v. O’Brien, 774 A.2d 89, 107 (R.I. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Grayhurst, 852 A.2d at 507 (“Although the testimony at issue was certainly prejudicial, [a]ll of the evidence that tends to prove that [the] defendant is guilty of a crime might be said to be prejudicial.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the instant case, the trial justice stated on the record that some of the issues surrounding Ms. Gallardo’s testimony about defendant’s purportedly controlling behavior had been “air[ed]” in chambers, but he noted that Ms. Gallardo’s testimony, including the statements - 24 - properly at issue on appeal, was admissible as it was evidence of flight. The trial justice specifically pointed to the fact that Ms. Gallardo testified that defendant actually attributed his controlling and possessive behavior to his being “wanted.” Finally, the trial justice stated: “This is all evidence of guilty knowledge and very, very relevant. And to the extent that there’s any prejudice involved, it is minimal, indeed, compared to the high relevance, and I will certainly permit this kind of evidence to be adduced.” The trial justice cited to State v. Reyes, 705 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1998), which supports the proposition that evidence of flight can be considered by a jury, “not because it raises a legal presumption of guilt, but because it is a circumstance bearing upon the question of the [defendant’s] guilt which may be presented for the consideration of the jury.” Id. at 1375 n. 2 (quoting State v. Falcone, 41 R.I. 399, 401, 103 A. 961, 961 (1918)). After reviewing the trial justice’s decision, we are satisfied that he soundly exercised his discretion and properly articulated the grounds on which he was permitting the testimony. See Selwyn, 879 A.2d at 887; Evans, 742 A.2d at 719. In addition to testifying that defendant exhibited controlling, “possessive” behavior, Ms. Gallardo also testified that defendant stated that the reason he behaved in such a way was because he was “wanted.” As evidence of flight, consciousness of guilt, and the fact that “Benny Delgado” was Ramon Virola, this testimony was extremely probative. Though there may have been some prejudice in portraying defendant as “possessive” and as unwilling to be photographed, that possible prejudice could not outweigh such high probative value; this is certainly not a situation where the evidence at issue exhibited marginal relevance and enormous prejudice. See DeJesus, 947 A.2d at 883. Actually, it is quite the opposite—the evidence in the instant case was enormously relevant and marginally prejudicial. As such, we hold that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion under Rule 403 when he admitted Ms. Gallardo’s statements over defendant’s objections. - 25 -
The defendant lists the following as the seventh statement by Ms. Gallardo with which he takes issue on appeal: “That on the night she decided to go to the police to reveal Mr. Virola’s status as being ‘wanted,’ she was receiving text messages and photographs from Mr. Virola indicating that he knew where she lived and that he was coming for her   .” See footnote 9, supra. The defendant did object to Ms. Gallardo’s just-referenced testimony at trial; however, he “opened the door” to the issue during his cross-examination of Ms. Gallardo. Consequently, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial justice’s overruling of defendant’s objection. On cross-examination, the defendant asked Ms. Gallardo questions regarding her reasons for moving out of the home which she had shared with the defendant, without informing the defendant, in order to move to Chino Valley with Alice. That questioning elicited the fact that she acted in that way even though she had stated that the defendant loved and provided for his son. It also elicited the fact that the defendant called and asked about their son and that she continued to communicate with the defendant by text message regarding their son even after she had moved. It is the contention of the state, with which this Court agrees, that the state was free, on redirect examination, to elicit the testimony at issue in order to illustrate what the state was contending was Ms. Gallardo’s reason for moving without informing the defendant—that she was afraid of him. That testimony counteracted the attempts on cross-examination to suggest that Ms. Gallardo’s motives in moving had to do solely with pursuing her new relationship. Therefore, the defendant’s arguments on appeal with respect to statement number (7) are unavailing. See, e.g., State v. Mastracchio, 112 R.I. 487, 495, 312 A.2d 190, 195 (1973) (holding that “[o]nce [the] defendant opened up the door to [certain] evidence in an attempt to impeach [a witness’s] credibility, he could not complain when the state followed with further - 26 - testimony of a like character in clarification of what had been brought up on crossexamination”). IV