Opinion ID: 2424610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inconsistencies in State's Case

Text: The defendant first argues that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived significant inconsistencies in the state's case. He points out that Amy's in-court testimony that, during the incidents in question, she had underwear on, but that defendant pulled [it] off to the side and kissed her vaginal area, is inconsistent with her statement during the CAC interview that her underwear stayed on and that defendant suck[ed] on the outside of her bottom private with his lips and his tongue. Also, according to defendant, although Amy said during her CAC interview that defendant put his lips on her private areas about ten times, her testimony on direct examination was that these incidents occurred almost on a daily basis    or at least dozens of times. The defendant further points out that the trial justice made no mention at all of [Amy's] diarywhich was in evidencein which she wrote, during [the period that defendant allegedly molested her], that nothing significant was occurring at her mother's home, and that life there was simply `blah.' Finally, with respect to the inconsistency issue, defendant notes that the trial justice did not reconcile Amy's in-court testimony, that defendant never asked her to perform oral sex on him, with the pretrial statements by [Amy] to her father, conveyed by him to [Officer Fraatz],    that [Amy] had been asked to perform oral sex on, or in fact had oral sex with, [defendant]. After carefully reviewing the record, we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive any material inconsistencies, as defendant contends. The defendant asserts, incorrectly, that Amy's testimony that she had underwear on, but that defendant pulled [it] off to the side, is inconsistent with her earlier statement that her underwear stayed on and that defendant suck[ed] on the outside of her bottom private with his lips and his tongue. Simply put, no inconsistency exists between these two statements. In both statements, Amy maintained that she was wearing underwear, and defendant does not identify any statement by Amy in which she asserted that defendant merely had oral contact with the outside of her underwear and not her skin. Therefore, contrary to defendant's assertion, no inconsistency exists in this respect. The defendant similarly argues that an inconsistency exists between Amy's pretrial statement that defendant put his lips on her private areas about ten times and her in-court testimony, during which, defendant asserts, she stated that these incidents occurred almost on a daily basis    or at least dozens of times. However, a review of Amy's testimony makes clear that Amy did not contradict herself on the stand, as defendant alleges. During the part of the testimony in question, Amy was testifying about the various ways in which defendant molested her. It was in the context of that testimony, and immediately after answering that defendant would rub her vaginal area with his hands [u]nderneath her clothes, that she then was asked how many times this had happened to her. Her answer of [d]aily, dozens, therefore, more likely refers either to the number of times that defendant rub[bed] her vaginal area with his hands [u]nderneath her clothes or to the total number of molestations committed by defendant. In either case, Amy clearly was not referring to the number of times that defendant performed cunnilingus on her, and defendant mischaracterizes Amy's testimony to the extent that he argues otherwise. We therefore hold that there was no inconsistency between Amy's pretrial and in-court statements in this respect. The defendant also makes much of the fact that the trial justice, in her written decision, did not mention Amy's diary, which contained allegedly inconsistent entries, and did not reconcile Amy's testimony, that defendant never asked her to perform oral sex on him, with Officer Fraatz's report, in which the officer wrote that Amy's father conveyed to him that Amy had been asked to perform oral sex on defendant. Even if the aforementioned inconsistencies did exist, it was within the trial justice's discretion to find, as she ultimately did, Amy's testimony to be more credible than the testimony of defendant and the other defense witnesses. The trial justice acknowledged defendant's assertion that Amy's reportage of the events in question to various officials was inconsistent with her trial testimony. After considering the entire record, however, the justice ultimately determined that a profusion of credible and consonant evidence existed to support beyond a reasonable doubt the jury's finding of guilt upon the four counts of the indictment. Because this Court is relegated to reading from a `lifeless record,' [we] justifiably defer to trial justices who experience firsthand the delivery and demeanor of a witness's testimony. State v. Guerrero, 996 A.2d 86, 90 (R.I.2010) (quoting State v. Collazo, 967 A.2d 1106, 1110 (R.I.2009)). Therefore, looking at her credibility determinations through a prism of deference, as we must, we hold that the trial justice did not err in accepting Amy's testimony as credible. See State v. Medeiros, 996 A.2d 115, 122 (R.I. 2010); see also Guerrero, 996 A.2d at 90 ([W]e consistently have engaged in a deferential review of a trial justice's credibility determinations.). Moreover, we previously have held that in deciding a motion for a new trial, the trial justice need not refer to all the evidence supporting the decision but need only cite evidence sufficient to allow this [C]ourt to discern whether the justice has applied the appropriate standards. State v. Mondesir, 891 A.2d 856, 862 (R.I.2006) (quoting State v. Otero, 788 A.2d 469, 472 (R.I.2002)). We are satisfied that the trial justice in this case appropriately reviewed the entire record and sufficiently outlined her reasons for denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Therefore, she did not err, as defendant suggests, in not referring to Amy's diary in her written decision and in not reconciling one part of Amy's testimony with a previous statement.