Opinion ID: 2316973
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Coconspirator's Testimony

Text: Finally, defendant insists that the trial justice erred by allowing the state to impeach Clement with his guilty plea for conspiring with defendant to sell cocaine to Det. A'Vant. At trial, Clement, a defense witness, testified inconsistently with the testimony of Det. A'Vant, prompting the state to seek to impeach his credibility with his guilty plea to the instant conspiracy. Although, as defendant admits, there is dispositive law from this Court at odds with his position, he maintains that the state's inordinately weak case renders this evidence unduly prejudicial. It is well settled that this Court will not disturb a trial justice's ruling on an evidentiary issue unless that ruling `constitutes an abuse of the justice's discretion that prejudices the complaining party.' State v. Hallenbeck, 878 A.2d 992, 1015 (R.I.2005) (quoting Gomez, 848 A.2d at 232); see also State v. Dellay, 687 A.2d 435, 439 (R.I.1996). This Court subscribes to the well-established principle of law that use of a coconspirator's guilty plea or conviction as substantive proof of a defendant's complicity is not admissible in evidence. State v. Braxter, 568 A.2d 311, 316 (R.I.1990) (quoting State v. Parente, 460 A.2d 430, 434 (R.I.1983)). However, such evidence is admissible and not unduly prejudicial when introduced to impeach the credibility of a previously convicted defendant testifying in a codefendant's trial. Id. In addition, we have imparted upon a trial justice the utmost responsibility to instruct the jury on the limited evidentiary use of a guilty plea or conviction. Id. We hold that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion by allowing the state to impeach Clement with his conspiracy plea. Not only do we note that the state's case was not so weak to render this evidence any more prejudicial than it otherwise may have been, but also the trial justice gave a timely and effective cautionary instruction about the appropriate use of Clement's plea. The courts of this state will not countenance a defendant's calling as a witness a coconspirator who has admitted guilt on the one hand, yet crying foul when that witness is confronted with his admission in a separate proceeding.