Opinion ID: 2823222
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Testimony of Trooper Anthony Washington

Text: Trooper Washington4 testified that, at approximately 1:00 a.m. on January 31, 2012, he and Trooper Viera were traveling together in a police cruiser in Middletown, Rhode Island; he said that, as he turned onto West Main Road, he saw from about one hundred feet away what he referred to as an “altercation” between a man and a woman. (During his testimony at trial, Trooper Washington identified the man as defendant Thomas Matthews.) When asked at trial to be more specific about his observations, Trooper Washington added that he saw the pair “hugging, doing something” and that “the male was yelling and screaming.” Trooper Washington testified that he did not get a “full look” at the man and woman as he drove past them and that he accordingly made a U-turn to approach the pair again. Trooper Washington further testified that, as he made the turn, he observed the two persons “yelling and screaming” at each other. Trooper Washington further testified that, after he made the U-turn, he and Trooper Viera drove up to where the two individuals stood; he added that both troopers immediately stepped 3 We note that, in the testimony of both troopers, the various epithets allegedly uttered by defendant on the night of his arrest were transcribed without redaction. We have chosen to reproduce their testimony in this opinion in a similarly unbowdlerized fashion because what defendant is alleged to have actually said is so central to the issues on appeal. Unfortunately, many of the words in question are likely to cause real offense to some readers, but we are convinced that an unflinching examination of defendant’s speech is critical to a just analysis of his arguments. This Court has proceeded in this manner in similar situations in the past. See, e.g., State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 509 (R.I. 2004); Johnson v. Palange, 122 R.I. 361, 363 n. 2, 406 A.2d 360, 361 n. 2 (1979). 4 For reasons that will become apparent in the course of our discussion of defendant’s arguments on appeal, it is significant to note that Trooper Washington has been described by both parties as an African-American man. -3- out of the cruiser. Trooper Washington stated that, upon alighting from his vehicle, he heard defendant say, “[T]ake me now, take me now, I don’t care.” Trooper Washington next testified that he asked defendant for identification and that defendant responded, “‘[F]uck you, cops,’ ‘you’re gay,’ ‘you    guys are queers,’ [and] ‘you guys are just harassing me.’” In addition, Trooper Washington testified that defendant made “several threats, threats saying he was going to kill us.” Trooper Washington stated that, at that point in time, he was concerned for “[o]fficer safety and the female’s safety,” explaining that, when defendant began yelling and screaming, the troopers “didn’t know what was going on.” Trooper Washington testified that defendant then “made a physical movement” towards both troopers and that Trooper Viera proceeded to place defendant in an “arm bar.”5 Trooper Washington added that, once defendant was placed in the arm bar, Trooper Washington proceeded to “grab” from defendant’s pocket the identification which he had previously requested. Trooper Washington testified that, although the troopers “ended up calming [defendant] down for literally a brief second or two,” while in the arm bar defendant kept on saying, “[Y]ou guys are harassing me” and, “I didn’t do anything.” Trooper Washington next testified that, while he and Trooper Viera continued their attempts to calm defendant down, Trooper Viera “loosen[ed] the arm bar,” at which point “it looked like [defendant] wanted to escape.” Trooper Washington stated that “[f]rom that point forward, [he and Trooper Viera] ended up putting [defendant] in handcuffs for [their] safety.” 5 On cross-examination, Trooper Washington explained that the term “arm bar” refers to a method of controlling an individual, whereby the individual’s “arm is straight out” and the police officer is able to exert control over him. Trooper Washington testified that, in the just-described position, the officer has control over the individual, and the individual is bent over “against the cruiser    [to] have the vehicle support,” thereby preventing him from moving around and injuring himself or others. -4- Trooper Washington later confirmed that, once defendant was in handcuffs, he was deemed to be under arrest for disorderly conduct. Trooper Washington added that, during the process of handcuffing and immediately thereafter, defendant continued to yell: “‘I’m going to kill you guys,’ ‘I don’t care,’ ‘I don’t care if I go back,’ ‘fuck you, cops,’ ‘you guys are queer,’ ‘gay,’ [and] so forth.” Trooper Washington further testified that he and Trooper Viera then decided to put defendant in their police cruiser; he described as follows what occurred while they were doing so: “[The defendant] literally looked at me and he said, ‘[Y]ou’re nothing but a bitch-ass nigger,’ ‘I don’t know why you’re doing this,’ ‘you’re going against me,’ ‘you’re going against your own kind.’ And that was directly toward me.” Trooper Washington further testified that he and Trooper Viera transported defendant to the Wickford barracks for processing; he added that defendant was uncooperative throughout the entirety of the troopers’ attempt to process him at the barracks. Trooper Washington stated that defendant was “yelling, swearing, continuously stating that he knew people, that he was going to have my badge, that he was also going to kill me, kill Trooper Viera    [and was] calling us gay and saying we were harassing him.” On cross-examination, Trooper Washington testified that the two individuals whom he had observed in Middletown on the date at issue (viz., defendant and his female companion) were both African-American. Trooper Washington then answered a series of questions concerning the time at which defendant was placed in the arm bar by Trooper Viera. First, Trooper Washington admitted that, after he took defendant’s identification, defendant was not released from the arm bar. Next, Trooper Washington testified that, after he obtained identification from defendant, Trooper Viera “release[d] the pressure” on defendant while defendant was in the arm bar; he added that, once they did so, “it seemed like [defendant] wanted -5- to continue at [him and Trooper Viera].”6 Finally, on further questioning, Trooper Washington stated that he felt as though defendant wanted to “continue at [him]” because, when Trooper Viera released the pressure on the arm bar, defendant “made a quick forward movement.” It was at that point, Trooper Washington testified, that the two troopers put defendant in handcuffs. On redirect examination, Trooper Washington testified in more detail regarding defendant’s forward movement, stating that Trooper Washington “[i]nterpreted that movement towards [the troopers], the forward movement [as meaning] that he was going to attack   .” Finally, Trooper Washington testified on cross-examination that, during the encounter with defendant, he understood defendant’s utterances “as a threat.” Specifically, Trooper Washington testified that, “[w]hen a person says, ‘I’m going to kill you,’ I take that as a threat.” He added that defendant said “I’m going to kill you” to both Trooper Viera and himself.