State v. Craig DiPetrillo

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
922 A.2d 124 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Psychological pressure arising solely from an employer-employee relationship is insufficient to constitute an "implied threat" for the purpose of establishing the "force or coercion" element of sexual assault. When a trial judge in a bench trial bases a conviction on both a legally erroneous theory and a potentially valid one, and the findings are so intertwined that the valid basis cannot be independently assessed, the conviction must be vacated and remanded for clarification.

Facts:

Craig DiPetrillo, age 30, was the employer of Jane, a 19-year-old student, at his business, Aeriel Designs.
On March 20, 2002, DiPetrillo asked Jane to work late, but instead of working, he took her to get food and a twelve-pack of beer before returning to the office.
At the office, Jane consumed four beers provided by DiPetrillo.
DiPetrillo then pulled Jane onto his lap and kissed her. She initially kissed him back but then protested, stating "we can’t do this" and that he was her boss.
Despite her protests, DiPetrillo continued his advances, moving her to a chair, touching her breast under her shirt, and pulling down her pants and underwear.
Jane repeatedly told him to stop and pushed his hand away, but DiPetrillo proceeded to digitally penetrate her vagina for approximately one minute.
After she stood up and got dressed, DiPetrillo forcibly held her by the waist while he masturbated, ejaculating on her stomach.
The following day, Jane reported the incident to a supervisor and later to the police, quitting her job soon after.

Procedural Posture:

A grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Craig DiPetrillo for first- and second-degree sexual assault.
The case was tried in the Superior Court without a jury (a bench trial), where DiPetrillo's defense was consent.
The trial justice found DiPetrillo guilty on both counts.
DiPetrillo filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence concerning the complainant's post-assault substance use.
The trial justice held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion for a new trial.
DiPetrillo (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction and the denial of his new trial motion to the Rhode Island Supreme Court (appellee is the State).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the trial justice err by defining the "force or coercion" element of sexual assault to include psychological pressure arising from an employer-employee relationship, and were the findings on physical force so intertwined with this error as to require vacating the conviction?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Goldberg

Yes. The trial justice erroneously extended the legal definition of an implied threat to include psychological pressure from an employment relationship, and this error was inextricably intertwined with the finding of guilt. The court's previous holding in State v. Burke, which found an implied threat from an armed police officer's position of authority, was explicitly limited by State v. Jacques and does not extend to the facts of this case. Because the trial justice found that both physical and psychological coercion were "part and parcel" of the defendant's misconduct, this Court cannot be certain that the conviction rested on an independent and sufficient finding of physical force alone. Therefore, the proper remedy is to vacate the conviction and remand the case to the same trial justice to re-examine the record and determine if guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt based solely on the theory of physical force. The denial of the motion for a new trial is affirmed, as the trial justice did not err in finding the newly discovered evidence was not likely to change the verdict.

Dissenting - Justice Flaherty

Yes. The trial justice's application of the implied-threats doctrine was an error of law, but the proper remedy is a judgment of acquittal, not a remand. The trial justice explicitly found that the victim was overcome by a combination of psychological pressure and only a "modicum" of physical force. This indicates a finding that the physical force alone was insufficient to overcome the victim. Since the psychological pressure theory is legally invalid, the state failed to prove the element of force or coercion beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanding the case gives the state an improper second chance to prove its case; therefore, the conviction should be vacated and a judgment of acquittal entered.

Concurring - Justice Robinson

I concur with the majority's opinion to vacate and remand the case based on the erroneous application of the force or coercion standard, but I express no opinion on the majority's holding concerning the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Analysis:

This case significantly limits the scope of the "implied threat" doctrine for establishing force or coercion in sexual assault cases in Rhode Island. It clarifies that a standard position of authority, like that of an employer, does not in itself create the type of inherent coercion that can substitute for physical force or threats of violence, distinguishing it from the unique authority of an armed law enforcement officer. The decision also provides important procedural guidance for appellate courts reviewing bench trial convictions based on mixed legal theories, establishing remand for clarification by the original fact-finder as the preferred remedy over a new trial or acquittal when the record is ambiguous.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Craig DiPetrillo (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"