State v. Michael Burkinshaw

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from a Superior Court judgment of conviction on one count of resisting arrest. The defendant assigned three errors with respect to the trial proceedings, and the Supreme Court affirmed on each. First, the defendant challenged the trial justice's decision not to instruct the jury on self-defense as a defense to resisting arrest. He maintained that the record evinced evidence that the arresting officer employed excessive force in effectuating the arrest, entitling him to a full instruction on self-defense. The Supreme Court held that the record did not contain such evidence, and that therefore the trial justice did not err in his instructions to the jury. Second, the defendant challenged the trial justice's decision not to pass the case following the state's inclusion of certain remarks in its opening statement, which he maintained created incurable prejudice because the prosecutor alluded to the arresting officer's familiarity with Mr. Burkinshaw. The Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not clearly err by refusing to pass the case rather, the trial justice properly evaluated the prejudice created by the comment and determined that the prejudice could be cured by a cautionary instruction. Finally, the defendant challenged the trial justice's refusal to allow a certain line of questioning on cross-examination of the arresting officer regarding his occupational status as disabled. The Supreme Court held that the trial justice properly concluded that the evidence was not relevant and therefore was inadmissible. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgment of conviction.