Opinion ID: 2008865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: webster

Text: We shall initially address four of Webster's grounds for appeal. First, Webster claims that the trial justice committed reversible error in ruling that a statement made by Pacheco in Webster's presence was admissible against Webster as an adoptive admission. Second, he claims that the trial justice erred in admitting Webster's statement to a police officer on the night of his arrest. Third, he claims that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Fourth, he claims that the trial justice committed error in refusing to sever his trial from that of Pacheco. Additional facts will be supplied as needed in the discussion of these issues.
Webster learned through pretrial discovery that the state intended to introduce into evidence as an adoptive admission a statement made by Pacheco in Webster's presence. Thereupon, Webster filed a pre-trial motion in limine to exclude all references to the statement during the trial. After conducting a hearing, the trial justice denied the motion and ruled that the statement was admissible against Webster as an adoptive admission in accordance with State v. Lerner, 112 R.I. 62, 83-84, 308 A.2d 324, 338-39 (1973). We agree with his ruling. At the outset, we set forth the standard of review in ruling on the question before us. The issue of whether a statement is admissible as an adoptive admission depends upon the resolution of mixed questions of law and fact. With respect to a trial justice's findings of fact on motions to suppress, we have consistently held that they will be given great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless it can be shown that they are clearly wrong or that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived relevant evidence on a crucial issue. State v. Jenison, R.I., 442 A.2d 866, 872 (1982); State v. Cline, 122 R.I. 297, 303, 405 A.2d 1192, 1196 (1979); State v. Leavitt, 103 R.I. 273, 289-90, 237 A.2d 309, 318-19, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 881, 89 S.Ct. 185, 21 L.Ed.2d 155 (1968). We have also held that absent extraordinary circumstances, as insituations in which only one factual conclusion is possible and thus only a question of law is presented, the conclusions of a trial justice in mixed questions of law and fact are entitled to the same weight as are his factual findings. Fournier v. Fournier, 479 A.2d 708, 715 (R.I. 1984); see DeNardo v. Fairmount Foundries Cranston, Inc., 121 R.I. 440, 449, 399 A.2d 1229, 1234 (1979). At the preliminary hearing, the defense presented a witness, Richard Cobb, who testified that Pacheco and Webster came to his apartment shortly after the murder. Cobb further testified that Pacheco told him that he had just killed Mills and that Webster held a knife while he made him [Mills] take off a leather coat. Cobb stated that Webster was within about three or four feet of Pacheco and Cobb when Pacheco made the statement. He stated that Webster never spoke but was smiling and nodding in affirmation. His testimony indicated that although he, Cobb, had consumed some alcohol several hours before seeing Pacheco and Webster, he had slept during the interim. He also stated that it appeared to him that Webster was kind of on and off the board, the verge of being sober and drunk. Webster's testimony totally contradicted the account given by Cobb. When an incriminatory or accusatory statement is made during a conversation that took place in the presence and hearing of a criminal defendant, and such statement is not denied by the defendant under circumstances in which repudiation of an untrue statement would be expected, both the statement and the fact of his silence are admissible against the defendant as an indication that the statement is true and the defendant has adopted it as his own. State v. Lerner, 112 R.I. at 83-84, 308 A.2d at 338; State v. Reitsma, 68 R.I. 310, 316, 27 A.2d 312, 315 (1942). This exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible does not of course apply under circumstances in which the defendant is in police custody and exercises his or her right to remain silent. State v. Marcello, 72 R.I. 382, 384-85, 51 A.2d 828, 829 (1947); State v. Epstein, 25 R.I. 131, 136-37, 55 A. 204, 206-07 (1903). In Lerner, supra, this court has stated that in ruling on the admissibility of such statements, a trial justice should consider five factors: (1) [whether] the statement was incriminating or accusatory; (2) that it was one to which an innocent person in the situation of the defendant would reply; (3) that it was made within the presence and hearing of the defendant; (4) that he understood the meaning of the statement; and (5) that he had an opportunity to deny or reply to the statement. State v. Lerner, 112 R.I. at 84, 308 A.2d at 338. Webster argues that Pacheco's statement to Cobb did not meet the standards enunciated in State v. Lerner , and therefore was not admissible as an adoptive admission against him. He contends that because he was highly intoxicated, he was unable to understand and respond to Pacheco's statement. We have examined the record and conclude that there is ample evidence to support the factual findings of the trial justice; he was not clearly wrong, nor did he misconceive or overlook the relevant evidence before him. In determining the facts about whether Webster heard Pacheco's statement, whether he was capable of understanding it, and whether he had an opportunity to respond, the trial justice assessed the credibility of Cobb and of Webster. The trial justice observed that Cobb's testimony was not only clear and convincing    [but] much more reliable than the contradictory testimony of Mr. Webster. We believe that the trial justice considered all of the relevant factors before him and assessed the credibility of both witnesses as he is required to do. Assessment of credibility is within the province of the trial justice. State v. Jenison, 442 A.2d at 873. We therefore hold that the trial justice was correct in determining that Pacheco's statement to Cobb was admissible as an adoptive admission against Webster.
Webster filed a pretrial motion to suppress statements that he had made at the police station the night of his arrest. The trial justice denied the motion. Webster asserts that after the arresting officers had given him the Miranda warnings, he exercised his right to remain silent, and therefore subsequent statements elicited by the officers were inadmissible. The testimony provided the following facts. When Webster was arrested at his apartment in Fall River, Massachusetts, the arresting officer, Sergeant Robert Peladeau of the Fall River police department, read him the Miranda warnings. The officer testified that thereafter Webster signed a waiver-of-rights form that substantially stated that he fully understood all that was contained in the form, that he had read it, and that it was explained to him without threats or promises. The form stated, I, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive all of my constitutional rights and agree to answer all questions inquired of me by the police. The Fall River police sergeant went on to say that Webster told him he had nothing to say at that time. Apparently, the officer interpreted this utterance to mean that Webster did not know anything concerning the event about which he was being interrogated. Webster was then transported to the Fall River police station. Approximately an hour and a quarter later, a Rhode Island State Police officer told Webster that he was working in conjunction with the Fall River police in connection with a murder committed in Tiverton, Rhode Island, renewed the Miranda warnings, and informed Webster that he was being charged with the murder. Webster again stated that he understood his rights and that he was willing to waive them. In response to the officer's questions, Webster stated that he knew Mills, that he, Pacheco, and another man had been with Mills at a cafe hours before the murder, and that the three men agreed that Mills needed a few slaps. Webster related that they then took Mills for a ride, slapped him around, and threw him out of the car. When the officer asked if Webster would be willing to make a written statement and take a polygraph test, he stated that he wanted to speak with an attorney. No further questioning took place. Webster contends that his statement to the Fall River police sergeant that he had nothing to say at that time was tantamount to invoking his right to remain silent. This contention is directly counter to the finding of fact made by the trial justice. The Court finds, on facts before the Court that there is no evidence before the Court that this Defendant invoked his right to remain silent, nor is there any evidence before the Court that [Lieutenant] Cunningham, who was investigating a murder which took place in the State of Rhode Island, was aware of any investigation which took place between the Fall River police at the time of the serving of the warrant. This finding of fact by the trial justice is entitled to great deference on appeal and is not to be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. State v. Riendeau, R.I., 448 A.2d 735, 737 (1982); State v. Amado, R.I., 424 A.2d 1057, 1063 (1981); State v. LaRosa, 112 R.I. 571, 576, 313 A.2d 375, 377 (1974); State v. Leavitt, 103 R.I. 273, 290, 237 A.2d 309, 318-19 (1968). An independent examination of the record indicates that the findings of fact by the trial justice were amply supported by the evidence. The signing of the waiver-of-rights form presented by the Fall River sergeant indicates a willingness to answer any questions that might be posed by the police. The testimony of the State Police officer, Lieutenant Charles Cunningham, also indicates that after fresh Miranda warnings, Webster answered his questions without any reluctance whatsoever. Indeed, it appears that Webster considered his statement regarding the slapping around of the victim to be exculpatory, and therefore he was quite willing to give such a statement to Cunningham. The facts of this case differ greatly from those of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), in which a suspect invoked the right to counsel but the next morning was told by an officer in charge of the detention cell in which he was placed that he had to talk to two detectives concerning the same charges about which he had been interrogated the previous night. Id. at 479, 101 S.Ct. at 1882, 68 L.Ed.2d at 382-83. The Court held that when the right to counsel has been invoked, no further interrogation could take place until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Id. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d at 386. In the case at bar there was no invocation of the right to counsel by Webster, nor was there an invocation of the right to remain silent by him when officers arrested him at his apartment. The substance of the testimony on direct examination and cross-examination of the Fall River police sergeant indicates no more than that Webster had nothing to tell at that juncture. The state cites Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), for the proposition that a suspect who has been given his Miranda warnings and who states that he does not want to answer any questions regarding the crime about which he is being interrogated may at a later time after fresh warnings be interrogated by other officers about a separate crime. Id. at 103-05, 96 S.Ct. at 326-27, 46 L.Ed.2d at 321-22. On the facts of this case, an application of the Michigan v. Mosley doctrine is unnecessary and inapposite. At no time prior to giving his statement did Webster indicate any refusal or reluctance to answer questions. For these reasons, the trial justice did not err in admitting into evidence Webster's statement given to Lieutenant Cunningham.
Webster next asks us to review the trial justice's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. He claims on appeal that there was insufficient evidence of guilt to warrant submission of his case to the jury. We cannot agree and, in fact, conclude that the record before us was replete with evidence more than sufficient to withstand such a motion. The trial justice scrupulously set forth all the evidence upon which his denial of Webster's motion was based. Specifically, be referred to various statements that placed Webster with Pacheco and Mills on the night and during the time of the murder  the adoptive admission that we find was properly in evidence; statements of Gibbons; Webster's statement that he was with Pacheco and Mills that evening and his statement that Mills needed a little slapping; as well as statements made by Pacheco when he took the stand at trial. The adoptive admission in particular provided information which indicated that Webster had been at the scene of the murder and had held a knife to the victim's neck, thus aiding and abetting in the homicide. When called upon to rule on a motion for judgment of acquittal, a trial justice must consider only that evidence that the prosecution contends is capable of generating proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial justice must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, drawing all reasonable inferences consistent with guilt, and without passing on the credibility of witnesses or weighing the evidence. State v. Romano, R.I., 456 A.2d 746, 756-57 (1983); State v. Ahmadjian, R.I., 438 A.2d 1070, 1084 (1981). In reviewing the trial justice's ruling, our duty is the same. We conclude that the evidence, when viewed most favorably to the state and when all reasonable favorable inferences are drawn therefrom, could lead a rational trier of fact to find Webster's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Webster's challenge to the trial justice's ruling is rejected.
Prior to and several times throughout the trial Webster moved to sever his trial from that of his codefendant pursuant to Rule 14 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 14 speaks in imperative terms regarding the obligation of the prosecution and the court in the event that the confession of one defendant implicates a codefendant: If two (2) or more defendants are to be tried together and the State intends to introduce at trial a statement or confession of any of the defendants, the attorney for the State shall, prior to trial, on notice to all defendants deliver to the court any such written statement or confession    for in camera inspection and determination of whether any portion of the statement or confession involves another defendant and, if so, whether such portion can be effectively deleted therefrom. If the court determines that effective deletions cannot practicably be made, it shall order separate trials of the defendants. In the case at bar, a taped confession by Pacheco, which had been transcribed into approximately eighteen pages of typewritten material, was introduced into evidence over Webster's objection. Pacheco's confession clearly implicated Webster by stating that on the night of the homicide Webster held a knife to the neck or head of the victim while Pacheco caused the victim to remove a coat that the victim was wearing. Pacheco then went on to describe the fashion in which he inflicted multiple stab wounds on the victim's body. The trial justice denied Webster's motion to sever his trial from that of Pacheco. He also denied a motion to excise reference to Webster in Pacheco's confession prior to admission at trial. Upon completion of the playing of the tape before the jurors, Webster moved to strike that portion of the confession which implicated him and further requested the court to instruct the jurors that they were to disregard any statements in Pacheco's confession which implicated Webster in the crime. This motion was also denied. Webster argues on appeal that the refusal to sever under these circumstances violated the provisions of Rule 14 and also violated the right to confrontation as enunciated in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). In that case two defendants, Bruton and Evans, were convicted, after a joint trial, of armed postal robbery. Evans had made an extrajudicial statement to a postal inspector in which he confessed to the crime but also stated that Bruton had been a joint participant as well. The trial justice instructed the jury that the confession was competent evidence against Evans but was inadmissible hearsay in regard to Bruton and therefore could not be considered by the jurors in determining Bruton's guilt. Neither Evans nor Bruton testified in the case, and as a result Evans was not subject to cross-examination. Id. at 124-25, 88 S.Ct. at 1621-22, 20 L.Ed.2d at 478-79. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the conviction with the following rationale: We hold that, because of the substantial risk that the jury, despite instructions to the contrary, looked to the incriminating extrajudicial statements in determining [Bruton's]    guilt, admission of Evans' confession in this joint trial violated petitioner's right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 126, 88 S.Ct. at 1622, 20 L.Ed.2d at 479. Subsequently in Nelson v. O'Neil, 402 U.S. 622, 91 S.Ct. 1723, 29 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971), the Court to some extent diluted the effect of the Bruton principle by holding that in a situation in which a codefendant took the stand and was subject to cross-examination (and in fact testified favorably of the defendant), there was no violation of the right to confrontation in admitting the codefendant's confession implicating O'Neil with appropriate limiting instructions. Id. at 629-30, 91 S.Ct. at 1727, 29 L.Ed.2d at 228. Most recently, in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979), a plurality of the Court held that it was not a violation of the Bruton principle to admit interlocking confessions of defendants who were tried jointly. The trial judge had given cautionary instructions to the jury that each confession could only be used against the defendant who made it and could not be considered as evidence pointing to the guilt of other codefendants. Id. at 67, 99 S.Ct. at 2136, 60 L.Ed.2d at 719. The plurality upheld the convictions stating that admission of interlocking confessions with proper limiting instructions conforms to the requirements of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Id. at 75, 99 S.Ct. at 2140, 60 L.Ed.2d at 724-25. [2] At the time that Rule 14 was adopted, the drafting committee was aware of Nelson v. O'Neil, supra . Indeed, the reporter's notes to the rule recognized that the thrust of Bruton had been somewhat blunted by that decision. The reporter went on to suggest, however, that the complete ban on [the use of] any portions of a confession which incriminates a co-defendant is deemed fair as well as easy to administer. Super.R.Crim.P. 14, RPTR's Notes. Thus, it is apparent from the reading of the plain language of the rule that the Superior Court of Rhode Island did not wish to follow the somewhat tortuous course that the Supreme Court had taken in applying and withholding the effect of the Bruton principle. It desired to adopt and did adopt a bright-line rule that required either the deletion of portions of a confession that implicated a codefendant, or the granting of separate trials. Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether Parker v. Randolph , Nelson v. O'Neil, or Bruton, all supra, is controlling in the instant case. The plain language of Rule 14 was conclusive upon the trial justice and is conclusive upon this court. When Webster moved for a separate trial, relying upon Rule 14, the trial justice had two choices. He could require the deletion of that portion of any statement given by Pacheco which implicated Webster, or he could have granted Webster a separate trial. His refusal to do either was a violation of the plain and unambiguous terms of the rule. Rules duly adopted by the Superior Court and approved by this court (as occurred in respect to this rule) have the force and effect of a statute and supersede any statutory regulations with which they conflict. General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 8-6-2, as amended by P.L. 1975, ch. 222, § 1. Consequently, as in statutory construction, if a court rule is free of ambiguity and expresses a clear and definite meaning, there is no room for interpretation or extension, and the court must give to the words of the rule their plain and obvious meaning. See Narragansett Food Services, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Labor, R.I., 420 A.2d 805, 808 (1980); Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake v. Davis, R.I., 420 A.2d 53, 57 (1980); North Providence School Committee v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board, 122 R.I. 415, 418, 408 A.2d 928, 929 (1979); State v. Angell, 122 R.I. 160, 170, 405 A.2d 10, 15 (1979). In the case at bar, the words of Rule 14 are plain and unambiguous. If the prosecution offers a confession by one defendant, and if this confession includes a statement that casts an accusation of guilt upon a codefendant, such codefendant is entitled to one of two types of relief. Either the court must delete that portion of the confession which refers to the objecting codefendant, or the court must grant the codefendant a separate trial. Although the rule was adopted in order to avoid Bruton problems, it is not subject to variations depending upon the shifting majorities or pluralities that may prevail from time to time in the Supreme Court of the United States or other segments of the federal judiciary. By adopting this rule, the Superior Court converted this constitutional issue with all of its vagaries and complexities into a simple matter of state law designed to protect the fairness of procedures relating to the joint or separate trials of persons accused of crime. Having adopted this rule, justices of the Superior Court and this court are bound thereby. Since the trial justice did not grant to Webster either of the types of relief expressed by Rule 14, his supplemental instruction to the jury (after first refusing a requested instruction to the same effect) that it could not consider Pacheco's confessions or admissions as against Webster did not constitute an adequate substitute for the relief mandated by the rule. Consequently, Webster is entitled to a new trial at which he will not be confronted by the incriminating extra-judicial statements of Pacheco.