State v. David R. Poulin (Rhode Island 1980)

Summary

The court affirmed Poulin’s convictions, holding that testimony from one witness was not hearsay, while challenges to another witness’s testimony were not preserved because counsel failed to request the necessary limiting instruction. It held that the mother’s testimony was improperly admitted under the spontaneous-utterance exception, but the error was harmless because the testimony was cumulative and the complainant was available for cross-examination. The judgment was affirmed and the case remanded to Superior Court.

Holding

Whether Michael’s testimony was hearsay. Michael’s testimony was not hearsay because he testified only that he observed a conversation and did not repeat the complainant’s statements; the testimony was admitted for the limited corroborative purpose identified by the trial justice.

Whether the admission of Carol’s testimony was reviewable on appeal. The court would not review whether Carol’s testimony was properly admitted for corroboration because counsel objected only on hearsay grounds and failed to object when the trial justice admitted it for the limited corroborative purpose.

Whether the absence of a limiting instruction concerning Carol’s testimony was reviewable. Poulin’s failure to expressly request a cautionary instruction foreclosed appellate review of the prejudicial effect of Carol’s testimony admitted for corroboration.

Whether Sandra’s testimony qualified under the spontaneous-utterance exception and, if not, whether its admission was prejudicial. The state failed to establish that the complainant’s statements to Sandra were spontaneous utterances because it presented no evidence of the complainant’s demeanor and the statements were made more than five hours after the assault following earlier disclosures. Nevertheless, admission of the testimony was harmless error because it was cumulative and it was not reasonably possible that it influenced the jury’s determination of guilt.

Summary

Holding

Cited by