Opinion ID: 2560385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issues

Text: On appeal, defendant's primary objection to the trial justice's denial of his motion for a new trial is rooted in Kizekai's subjective disbelief of Sampson's testimony. He argues that the record is void of any reason why one witness should be believed over the other and highlights Sampson's plea bargain as her motivation for giving incriminating testimony against him. Kizekai also contrasts Sampson's nearly empty bank account with his biweekly paychecks to allude to Sampson's possible motive for passing a bad check and why her testimony implicating defendant should have been disbelieved by the jurors and the trial justice. In his second objection to the new-trial denial, Kizekai contends that the state lacked evidence to prove its case against him. Most telling, Kizekai asserts, [was] the state's failure to present a handwriting expert to testify that the handwriting on the check was his. For its part, the state argues that Kizekai does not present any meaningful argument to dispute the highly deferential credibility findings of the trial justice, nor does Kizekai explain inconsistencies in his own trial testimony. For example, the state notes that the memo line of the check that reads supplies is a fact that corroborates Sampson's testimony that the check allegedly was for Kizekai's construction job and detracts from Kizekai's testimony that the check was for Sampson's car repairs. The state also highlights that Kizekai never disputed Sampson's testimony that he lambasted her for going to the police and that Kizekai previously fought with a person whose last name coincidentally matches the last name of two other payees of forged checks from the same checkbook as the instant check. [10] Concerning Kizekai's argument that the state failed to present an expert to establish that his handwriting was on the check, the state counters that the handwriting on the instrument is immaterial to a crime of uttering and publishing. The uttering and publishing crime, the state explained, is committed when the fraudulent check is presented to the bank, not when the check is written out. Accordingly, the state requests that we affirm the trial justice's denial of the new-trial motion in all respects.