State v. Ranieri
586 A.2d 1094, 1991 WL 26026, 1991 R.I. LEXIS 36 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness's identification testimony is inadmissible under Rule 602 for lack of personal knowledge if the witness had an insufficient opportunity to perceive the subject, especially when prior unsubstantiated claims, significant delay in identification, or external influences compromise the reliability of that perception.
Facts:
- On March 19, 1987, at 4 a.m., Elsie M., a 73-year-old woman, was awakened in her dark North Providence apartment by an intruder and was severely beaten with a metal bar.
- Elsie's second-floor tenant, William Picard, was awakened by the noise, intervened, briefly saw the assailant's "upper lip," and was also struck before the assailant escaped.
- After the assault, Picard initially identified a neighbor's boyfriend, "Henry," from a photograph, but police later lost this photo, and Picard was unable to pick Henry out of a police lineup.
- Approximately a week after the crime, Eric Ranieri was arrested, and his picture was published in the Providence Journal on or about March 24, 1987, and in subsequent articles.
- On April 11, 1987, Picard identified Ranieri from a police photo array, having previously cut out and saved Ranieri's picture from the Journal.
- Elsie consistently stated for over eighteen months after the crime that she never saw her assailant and provided no description to the police.
- On the eve of Ranieri's trial, September 13, 1988, Elsie suddenly claimed she could identify her assailant and, the next day, identified Ranieri from a photo array without defense counsel present.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Ranieri was charged by indictment with burglary and assault with a dangerous weapon.
- Ranieri was convicted of both charges after an eight-day jury trial in Superior Court.
- During pretrial proceedings, Ranieri moved to suppress in-court and out-of-court identifications by two witnesses, and moved to dismiss based on the state's failure to provide exculpatory evidence.
- The trial court denied Ranieri's motion to dismiss, finding no bad faith by the prosecution regarding the lost photograph of 'Henry'.
- The trial court allowed witness Elsie's delayed identification testimony.
- The trial court allowed witness Picard to testify that Ranieri's upper lip was 'the same' as the assailant's, but not to make a full identification of Ranieri.
- Ranieri appealed his convictions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a witness have sufficient personal knowledge, as required by Rule 602 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, to make an in-court or out-of-court identification when their opportunity to perceive the assailant was limited by poor lighting and brief viewing time, and their identification is influenced by external factors or a history of unsubstantiated accusations?
Opinions:
Majority - Murray, Justice
Yes, the out-of-court and in-court identifications by Elsie and Picard were improperly admitted at trial, as neither witness possessed the requisite personal knowledge under Rule 602 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence to competently identify Ranieri as the assailant. Regarding Elsie's identification, the court found her not competent to testify because she lacked sufficient personal knowledge. She was grabbed from behind in a dark apartment and steadfastly maintained for over eighteen months that she never saw her assailant. Her sudden identification on the eve of trial, after Ranieri's picture was widely published and while he was incarcerated, coupled with a history of making unsubstantiated accusations against him (such as believing he spied on her or committed prior break-ins without basis), indicated a preformed opinion rather than actual perception. Her explanation of fear for the eighteen-month delay was deemed insufficient, especially given Ranieri's continuous incarceration. Regarding Picard's identification, the court also found him incompetent under Rule 602. Picard admitted to only seeing the assailant's "upper lip" for a very brief time (1-2 seconds, though he once stated 10-60 seconds) in poor lighting, and stated that other men in the photo array had similar, non-distinctive upper lips. Crucially, Picard had cut out and saved Ranieri's picture from the Providence Journal before making his photo-array identification. The court concluded that Picard's identification of Ranieri's upper lip as "the same" as the assailant's must have been tainted by the newspaper photos, reasoning that a witness would be unable to identify a defendant when the sole element of personal knowledge is the viewing of a non-distinctive body part and lacking knowledge of overall facial characteristics. The court addressed other arguments: (1) It declined to overturn the trial justice's finding of no bad faith regarding the prosecution's loss of the initial "Henry" photograph, and found dismissal unwarranted. (2) It determined that a witness's statement about threats, made in response to defense counsel's questions implying improper coaching, was admissible to rehabilitate the witness. However, the trial justice erred in not giving a cautionary instruction regarding the prosecutor's improper closing remarks about unproven recorded threats, but this error was deemed to have a "negligible effect." (3) The court rejected the argument of inconsistent convictions, ruling that the jury's finding of intent to commit assault with a dangerous weapon (a felony) was sufficient to satisfy the felony requirement for the burglary conviction, despite an acquittal on assault with intent to murder.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Rule 602 regarding witness competency for identification testimony, particularly when perception opportunities are limited or external influences are present. It establishes a robust standard that requires a 'sufficient opportunity to perceive' the subject, going beyond mere subjective belief or general 'unreliability.' The ruling sets a higher bar for admitting eyewitness identifications that are compromised by factors such as darkness, brief viewing times, reliance on non-distinctive features, prior unsubstantiated accusations, or exposure to media reports of a suspect before identification, thereby reinforcing the judiciary's gatekeeping role in preventing potentially tainted testimony from reaching the jury.
