Opinion ID: 1436704
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statement by Party-Opponent

Text: The defendant's second issue on appeal is that the trial justice erred by admitting into evidence the testimony of Marisa's mother concerning defendant's statement to the congregation. Specifically, Mrs. Brun testified that defendant spoke to the congregation the Sunday following the sexual assault upon her daughter and said that he came from a d[y]sfunctional family and that he had a problem, and he had talked to the Bishop about it, and the Bishop was going to help him receive counseling. The defendant argues that the admission of this one statement constitutes reversible error, and he specifically asserts that the statement is irrelevant and, therefore, not admissible. We disagree. We are of the opinion that this statement was certainly not irrelevant to the case. On the contrary, this statement clearly had a tendency to make the determination concerning whether defendant had sexually assaulted Marisa the previous Sunday more probable than not. Because of its obvious relevance to this issue, it was certainly admissible as a statement by a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. This rule states in pertinent part: (d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if:    (2) Statement by Party-Opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement. The statement's relevancy evolves from the fact that the Sunday after the incident occurred, and after Marisa's mother had informed the bishop about the incident, Davis stood before the congregation, which included the victim's mother, and told the entire congregation that he came from a d[y]sfunctional family and that he had a problem, and he had talked to the Bishop about it, and the Bishop was going to help him receive counseling. Such a statement made to the entire congregation of a church in this context constituted an implicit admission of wrongdoing toward the victim in this case. It was an inculpatory statement. As this court has recognized in numerous cases, questions of relevance and materiality are within the sound discretion of the trial justice. See Thomas v. Amway Corp., 488 A.2d 716, 720 (R.I. 1985); Kelaghan v. Roberts, 433 A.2d 226, 231 (R.I. 1981); and State v. Gelinas, 417 A.2d 1381, 1386 (R.I. 1980). The trial justice must clearly have abused his or her discretion before reversal is warranted. Gelinas, 417 A.2d at 1386. We find no such abuse of discretion on the part of the trial justice in the instant case. For the foregoing reasons the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. The papers in the case are remanded to the Superior Court.