Opinion ID: 2356128
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jury's Verdict; Defendant's Motion for a New Trial; Defendant's Appellate Contentions

Text: On April 13, 2004, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on counts 1, 3, and 4. [5] The defendant then moved to arrest judgment on counts 3 and 4, and he also moved for a new trial. The trial justice arrested judgment on counts 3 and 4 and dismissed them; however, she denied defendant's motion for a new trial. As such, only defendant's conviction on count 1 ( viz., the first aiding and abetting count) is at issue in the instant appeal. A judgment of conviction was entered on July 14, 2004, and defendant timely appealed. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal; he argues that his actions did not indicate a shared unlawful purpose of dealing marijuana. The defendant argues that the weapon he checked was not proven at trial to have been used in Mr. Medeiros's marijuana operation and that his checking of license plates was not shown to have related to Mr. Medeiros's illegal activities. He furthermore contends that the lay low warning did not amount to affirmative participation in a criminal act in furtherance of the common design, nor was this evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a `community of unlawful purpose' in aiding and abetting [Mr.] Medeiros with his possession and intent to distribute drugs. In addition, defendant maintains that the trial justice erred in denying his motion to pass the case, which was based on the prosecution's failure to turn over the federal proffer letter and its failure to reveal Mr. Medeiros's change in bail status. Finally, defendant contends that the trial justice erred when she denied his motion for a new trial with respect to count 1 of the indictment. The defendant argues that the state failed to present material evidence to support the charge of aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute the same. The prosecution, for its part, maintains that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence and was not otherwise clearly wrong. The prosecution takes issue with defendant's argument that his actions did not amount to aiding and abetting Mr. Medeiros's drug operation; it contends that defendant's conviction for same was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution also argues that defendant has not demonstrated that the trial justice erred when she concluded that defendant had had an ample and fair opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Medeiros concerning his changed bail status and the federal proffer letter.