Opinion ID: 3169887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: On appeal, Mr. Lopez argues that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial because, in his view, the state’s two key witnesses, Ms. Bonet-Perez and Ms. Torres, gave “such conflicting and contradictory testimony that it was not reasonable for any jury to believe [them].” Mr. Lopez also contends that “it was impossible to attach much significance to the fact that Mr. Lopez happened to be carrying a 9 mm caliber weapon and the cartridge cases found at the scene could have been discharged from a 9 mm, firearm among others.” It is clear to us from the record that, in passing upon defendant’s motion for a new trial, the trial justice conducted the requisite three-step analytical process. See Gonzalez, 56 A.3d at 102; Adefusika, 989 A.2d at 480. - 10 - The trial justice completed the first step in the analysis by considering the evidence in light of the jury charge. See State v. Rosario, 35 A.3d 938, 948 (R.I. 2012). He summarized the testimony of Ms. Bonet-Perez and Ms. Torres relative to the events of November 30 and December 1. Specifically, the trial justice stated that the evidence showed that defendant shot Mr. Semidey in the leg and pointed a gun at various parts of Ms. Bonet-Perez’s body while pulling the trigger more than once. Next, the trial justice completed the second step of the analysis by independently assessing the credibility of the witnesses and weighing the evidence. See Hie, 93 A.3d at 976. The trial justice explicitly noted that there were “some discrepancies between the two women’s testimony,” but he nevertheless concluded that “those discrepancies or inconsistencies [did] not diminish    the weight or the significance of their testimony.” Furthermore, the trial justice noted that both Ms. Bonet-Perez and Ms. Torres had “categorically, unequivocally,