Opinion ID: 2335377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Right to Counsel at Grand Jury Proceedings

Text: Mr. Russell and Mr. Sidibe's third argument alleges that they were denied the right to be represented by counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution. The defendants point to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution, as the sources for the right to counsel during grand jury proceedings. They also contend that their rights to due process and equal protection under both the U.S. constitution and R.I. constitution have been violated. The state asserts that defendants waived the issue by failing to raise it before the Superior Court. We agree. As a general matter, this Court's raise-or-waive rule precludes our consideration of an argument that has not been raised and articulated at trial. State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822, 828 (R.I.2008). It is well settled that a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court. Id. at 828-29. Further, [o]ur cases indicate that the moving party at the trial court level must articulate the motion in an understandable manner for the trial justice. Id. at 829. Mr. Sidibe and Mr. Russell's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Because of the Failure to Present Exculpatory Evidence To and Other Irregularities Occurring Before the Grand Jury did not mention the right-to-counsel argument. Neither did a similar motion that Mr. Delvalle filed. Instead, Mr. Sidibe and Mr. Russell assert that the right-to-counsel issue was raised during the subsequent motion hearing by Mr. Delvalle's attorney when he commented on the role of the public defender. [8] Mr. Delvalle's attorney said: What's really troubling here, Judge, is this. As you know, my client, Onix Delvalle, is represented by the public defender. The other two co-defendants are represented by private counsel. They had the financing, wherewithal, to afford attorneys to represent them in this matter, but my client did not have the benefit of counsel at the time that this case was considered by the grand jury. And so I would suggest that he could not be in a position to say, even if the grand jury chose to hear him, I'm not in a position to say  he is not in a position to say, well, I will go in or I want to go into the grand jury. That seems to be kind of what the State is trying to say here. Well, they had the chance to go in and they didn't go in. It would have been appropriate, as I have indicated, perhaps for the prosecutor to seek the intercession of the court in order to see what should be done here. [9] Mr. Sidibe and Mr. Russell also allege that the Superior Court ruled on their right-to-counsel argument in its written opinion on the motion to dismiss. They point to the last paragraph of the court's eight-page discussion on exculpatory evidence and grand juries, in which the hearing justice said: This Court makes this decision in accordance with recent precedent and with due deference to the doctrine of stare decisis. This Court is mindful, however, that the current status of the law works to the disadvantage of indigent defendants, as in the present matter, who lack the resources to obtain counsel immediately to guide them through the grand jury process. Mr. Russell and Mr. Sidibe argue that the specific arguments of equal protection, the right to assistance of counsel and due process are an expansion of the argument presented and articulated in the lower court, and that they should be permitted to expand on such issues before this Court. It is clear to this Court that defendants' oral argument before the hearing justice focused on the duties and role of the prosecutor in grand jury proceedings. Our review of the Superior Court record reveals that the comments about the public defender were made in the context of defendants' argument that the prosecutor prevented the grand jury from performing its common-law functions. During that discussion, Mr. Delvalle's attorney simply said, and the hearing justice agreed, that indigent defendants are at a disadvantage before the grand jury. A review of the record, however, fails to reveal any argument or statement that this disadvantage contravenes the United States or Rhode Island Constitutions. Neither do we discern that Mr. Delvalle's attorney made a stand-alone argument about the denial of the right to counsel during grand jury proceedings. The oral argument at the motion hearing did not make clear in a rational and recognizable posture that defendants' alleged right to counsel was violated during grand jury proceedings. See Bido, 941 A.2d at 829 (If defendant intended to make a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, he did not put forth his argument in a rational and recognizable posture to the trial justice.). We are of the opinion, therefore, that Mr. Sidibe and Mr. Russell's contention that they were denied their right to be represented by counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution was not preserved for appellate review.