February 19, 2020 Supreme Court No. 2019-15-C.A. (P1/15-4108A) State : v. : Ricardo Franco. : 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 Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 222-3258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court No. 2019-15-C.A. (P1/15-4108A) State : v. : Ricardo Franco. : Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. OPINION Justice Indeglia, for the Court. After a trial in Providence County Superior Court, a jury found the defendant, Ricardo Franco (defendant), guilty of three counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault, in violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 11-37-8.1 and 11-37-8.2. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial justice erred in failing to grant a mistrial or to strike the complaining witness’s unexpected testimony and that the trial justice compounded the error by instructing the jury to disregard a portion of the complaining witness’s testimony. The defendant additionally argues that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. I Facts and Travel On January 4, 2016, defendant was indicted on three counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault. At the trial conducted over five days in April and May 2018, the complaining witness testified as to events that allegedly took place between February 18, 2014, and June 2014. According to the complaining witness, defendant, whom she referred to as an uncle, sexually assaulted her by penetrating her vagina with his penis on about thirty separate -1- occasions; she specifically recounted three of the alleged incidents. Her testimony included graphic details of assaults inflicted upon her by defendant following defendant’s discovery that she had a boyfriend and defendant’s alleged statement that he “wasn’t going to allow [her] boyfriend to be the first person to be with [her].” The pertinent facts of the case are as follows.1 The complaining witness testified first.2 In November 2013, she moved to defendant’s home in Central Falls, where her father was already living along with defendant, defendant’s wife, and their infant child.3 She testified that her father, like her, had immigrated from Guatemala and that he worked every night from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. According to the complaining witness, the first two incidents of sexual molestation occurred after her father had gone to work for the night. She testified that, although defendant’s wife and infant child were home, the incidents took place in their small apartment while defendant’s wife was bathing their infant child, as indicated by the sound of running water. She testified that defendant stopped the assaults when the faucet was turned off. She further testified that she was afraid to speak up during and after the alleged assaults, because defendant threatened to have her father deported if she ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals