Opinion ID: 1484070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Disclosure of the Length of Shelton's Suspended Sentence

Text: Prior to trial, the defense and prosecution agreed that Ms. Lang would not be questioned about the length of time Shelton said he would likely be incarcerated if he was charged with possession of cocaine. [14] During the trial, defense counsel played a recording of Ms. Lang's July 28, 2006, statement to the police and distributed a corresponding transcript to the jury. However, defense counsel inadvertently played and distributed unredacted versions of the statement, which included the portion of Ms. Lang's statement indicating that Shelton had told her that the drug charge would result in six to ten years for me. The defense then requested that there be no further inquiry on that issue. The trial justice ruled that the unredacted statement was relevant and admissible. He said, Under Rule 403, in my judgment, it is interwoven with the offense on trial and directly supports a finding of guilty knowledge, as well as motive and intent, and it allows the jury to hear a completely coherent story. The mere fact that it might be prejudicial does not render it inadmissible. In view of counsel's inadvertence in providing the information to the jury, the trial justice characterized the issue of Shelton's suspended sentence and his reasons for urging Ms. Lang to take responsibility for possession of the cocaine as fair game for the basis of further inquiry by either party. After Ms. Lang testified on the state's redirect examination about Shelton's fear of violating his probation and possibly facing jail time if he accepted responsibility for the drug charge, the trial justice interjected to address the jury. He addressed the panel as follows: testimony that purportedly reflects the defendant's having been on a suspended or probationary term for a criminal offense is offered to you for a very limited purpose, and that is, to the extent you consider it,    for the purpose of a defendant's motive or his intent or his plan as it may affect the charges before you. After further discussion between counsel and the trial justice about how the state may proceed on the issue, the defense restated its objection to the disclosure of the length of defendant's suspended sentence, arguing that it would be extremely prejudicial for the jury to learn of it. The trial justice overruled the objection and gave the defense the choice of the jury receiving this information through a stipulation or through the presentment of a certified copy of Shelton's previous conviction. Defense counsel chose to have the trial justice inform the jury of defendant's seventeen-year suspended sentence at the time he informed the jury that defendant was convicted of a felony in 2001. The trial justice so notified the jury. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial justice erred when he allowed disclosure of the length of defendant's suspended sentence for a prior conviction, because this information was unnecessary and severely prejudicial to him. In addition, he contends that the trial justice compound[ed] this error when he ruled that the subject is fair game now for inquiry. The defendant maintains that the admission of the term of the suspended sentence violated Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. [15]