Preview:

Supreme Court No. 2010-109-C.A. (P1/07-4097A)

State v. Edward Gordon.

: : :

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. OPINION Justice Flaherty, for the Court. On October 4, 2007, Jill, a thirty-five-year-old daycare worker and single mother, reported to the Bristol police that she had been sexually assaulted by the defendant, Edward Gordon. 1 On October 5, Bristol police officers applied for and obtained a search warrant for the defendant's apartment. 2 The warrant was issued by Superior Court Magistrate William McAtee. On December 7, 2007, a grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts of first-degree sexual assault, one count of kidnapping, and one count of second-degree sexual assault. Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search. In his motion, the defendant argued that Magistrate McAtee lacked the authority to issue a search warrant. The trial justice denied the defendant's motion, and a jury trial

commenced on May 19, 2009. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted the defendant of

We refer to the victim in this case by a pseudonym to protect her privacy. The search yielded a black leather belt, as well as a guitar foot pedal and attached cord. Also, police officers took a number of photographs of defendant's apartment during the search that matched Jill's description of what she had observed during the assault.
2

1

-1-

second-degree sexual assault, acquitted him on both counts of first-degree sexual assault, and deadlocked on the kidnapping charge. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the kidnapping charge, which the trial justice denied. He timely appealed to this Court. 3 Before this Court, defendant argues that the Superior Court magistrate had no authority to issue a search warrant and that retrial on the charge of kidnapping would violate his rights with respect to the double-jeopardy provisions of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions. On October 3, 2011, the parties appeared before the Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised by defendant's appeal should not be summarily decided without further briefing or argument. After considering the record, the memoranda submitted by the parties, and the oral arguments advanced by each, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the appeal should be decided at this time. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the rulings of the Superior Court. I Motion to Suppress On appeal, defendant contends that neither the statutorily enumerated duties of a Superior Court magistrate nor the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure empower a magistrate judge to issue a search warrant. 4 This Court reviews matters of statutory interpretation and

statutory construction de novo. See School Committee of Cranston v. Bergin-Andrews, 984 A.2d 629, 641 (R.I. 2009) (citing Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kaya, 947 A.2d 869, 872 (R.I. 2008)). "It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and
3 4

The trial justice stayed retrial on the kidnapping charge, pending the outcome of this appeal. This is defendant's sole argument with respect to the validity of the warrant. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the underlying affidavit, the basis for the magistrate's finding of probable cause when he issued the warrant, or the scope of the subsequent search. -2-

ordinary meanings." Tanner v. Town Council of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784, 796 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I. 1996)). However, if the statute is ambiguous, then the Court must construe the statute to "determine and effectuate the Legislature's intent and [] attribute to the enactment the meaning most consistent with its policies or obvious purposes." Id. (quoting Keystone Elevator Co. v. Johnson & Wales University, 850 A.2d 912, 923 (R.I. 2004)). Both parties cite G.L. 1956

Download 10-109.pdf

Rhode Island Law