Convicted Child Molester to Receive New Trial in Rhode Island.

On May 11, 2010, the Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling in the case of State of Rhode Island v. Langstaff to allow for a new trial. The decision is based on the fact that the prosecution did not submit valuable and incriminating evidence in a timely fashion, and yet was still allowed to use it as admissible evidence at trial.

Rhode Island Criminal Defense and Molestation Charges Attorney John MacDonald found this to be an article of interest.

The defendant is scheduled for release in September 2012. The full article follows below.

RI High Court Overturns Molestation Conviction

May 11, 2010
Tracy Breton

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The state Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the child molestation conviction of Christopher Langstaff, of Newport, saying his trial judge, Edwin J. Gale, erred in allowing incriminating testimony into evidence that the prosecutor did not turn over to the defense until the second day of trial.

The court ordered a new trial for Langstaff, 35, who has been serving a six-year term of imprisonment since his conviction by a Newport County Superior Court jury in June 2007. With credit for time he was held after his arrest, and "good time" credits, he is scheduled for release on Sept. 25, 2012, a corrections official said today.

With today's decision, however, he may petition to be released from the Adult Correctional Institutions pending the outcome of a new trial.

Langstaff was sentenced by Gale to serve six years of a 15-year sentence after a jury convicted the defendant of one count of second-degree child molestation sexual assault.

The complaining witness was 13 at the time of trial and was then living in Florida. The alleged offense took place in Newport at the defendant's home.

The high court, in a decision written by Justice William P. Robinson III, said that the evidence in question -- which was highly incriminating -- was "plainly inadmissible" because the prosecutor did not disclose it in a timely fashion. The high court said "there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution deliberately withheld information" as to what the complaining witness would testify to but that "it is our judgment that it was clear error for the trial justice to have permitted the introduction of this evidence for any purpose just a few short hours after defendant was apprised of it.''

In order for a defendant to receive a fair trial, the high court said, there is a pre-trial discovery rule that require prosecutors to turn over to the defense all incriminating evidence they it plan to use at trial. "We have further noted," Robinson wrote, "that the primary purposes of the rule are to eliminate surprise at trial and to ensure that both parties receive the fullest possible presentation of the facts prior to trial."

The prosecutor told the court that the last-minute disclosure occurred because the victim, just before taking the stand, provided a different version of events than what she had told the police.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.