June 29, 2021 Supreme Court No. 2019-196-C.A. (P1/16-2067A) (Concurrence begins on page 15) State : v. : Carlos Rivera. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Islan d, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email: opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of an y typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections m ay be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court No. 2019-196-C.A. (P1/16-2067A) (Concurrence begins on page 15) State : v. : Carlos Rivera. : Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ. OPINION Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court. The defendant, Carlos Rivera, appeals from an October 15, 2018 judgment of conviction and commitment entered against him in the Providence County Superior Court on one cou nt of first -degree child molestation sexual assault and two counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is th at t he t rial ju stice erred by unfairly limiting the testimony of a defen se wit ness, t hereby violating defendant’s constitutional right to present a full and fair defense. For t he reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. -1- Facts and Travel This case was initiated by the allegations of the complaining witness, Allison,1 that defendant, her step-grandfather, had sexually molested her on multiple occasions between July 18, 2013, and July 17, 2015. On Ju ly 8, 2016, defendant was indicted by a grand jury on the following counts, all relating to Allison, who was fourteen years of age or younger when the alleged incidents occurred: sexual penetration, to wit, penile/vaginal penetration (count one); sexual contact, to wit, hand to breast (count two); sexual contact, to wit, hand to bu ttocks (count three); and sexual contact, to wit, hand to vaginal area (count four). In June 2018, a jury trial was held in the Superior Court. Prior t o t rial, t he state moved in limine to preclude any reference at trial to the immigration status of any of the witnesses (including defendant) or concerning immigration proceedings relative to any of the witnesses.2 At the hearing, the state argued that such references would be irrelevant to the instant case. The state further explained that, if such references were permitted, the trial would “turn in to a m in i immigration proceeding regarding the status of [defendant]” and would potentially “play[] upon any sympathies of the jury.” The state also contended that, based on t he m inimal 1 The complaining witness was a minor when the alleged acts of molestation occurred; accordingly, we will use the pseudonym “Allison” to refer to her. 2 Although several different pretrial motions were presented to the trial justice, t he pretrial motion with respect to the immigration status of the witnesses is t h e on ly issue that has been pressed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals