State v. Larry Threadgill

Syllabus

The defendant, Larry Threadgill, came before the Court on appeal from a judgment of conviction for first-degree sexual assault following a jury trial in the Superior Court. The defendant argued that the trial justice's refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of consent was erroneous; that the trial justice erred when he refused to give a spoliation instruction; and that the trial justice erred when he gave an Allen charge to the jury, rather than declaring a mistrial. First, with respect to the instruction on the defense of consent, the Supreme Court reviewed de novo the challenged portions of jury instructions in the context in which they were rendered, and concluded that the trial justice's instruction on force and coercion was adequate. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice's refusal to instruct the jury on consent was not erroneous. Second, the Supreme Court observed that the record lacked any evidence to suggest that the pair of jeans the complaining witness wore on the day of the incident were exculpatory in value, that the defendant could not obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means, or that the state acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's contention that the trial justice erred when he refused to instruct the jury on spoliation. Finally, the defendant argued that the trial justice's Allen charge was improperly coercive. After having reviewed the Allen charge in its entirety, and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court declared that the trial justice's Allen charge was fair, neutral, and not coercive; accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice's Allen charge did not constitute reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.