State v. Coningford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in finding that the probative value of the 404(b) evidence outweighed the alleged remoteness of the prior acts of sexual misconduct, which occurred seven and eleven years before the charged act
• upholding the trial justice’s decision that “remoteness of the prior acts was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence” to show a common scheme, plan, or modus operandi to molest young boys
• “This Court has refused to extend the ‘lewd disposition’ exception to admit testimony of persons other than the victim in a particular case.”
• “[T]he jury could infer, from the evidence of similar incidents involving two other young boys, that defendant’s intent in touching [the - 18 - complainant] was for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.”
• seven and eleven years, respectively, for two victims
• seven and eleven years, respectively, for two victims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).