State v. Emanuel Baptista

Supreme Court
No. 2012-11-C.A.
(P1/09-2502A)
State :
v. :
Emanuel Baptista. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before
publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to
notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island,
250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone
222-3258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court
No. 2012-11-C.A.
(P1/09-2502A)
State :
v. :
Emanuel Baptista. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Goldberg, for the Court. The defendant, Emanuel Baptista (defendant or
Baptista), is before the Supreme Court on appeal from a judgment of conviction on two counts of
first-degree child molestation1 and two counts of first-degree child abuse on a child under the age
of five.2 The defendant argues that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial
and that the verdict failed to do substantial justice between the parties. For the reasons set forth
in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
Facts and Travel
The disturbing facts of this case concern the abuse and molestation of Anna,3 an infant
less than four months of age. Anna was born on April 8, 2009 to teenaged parents, Emanuel
Baptista and Brenda. At the time of Anna’s birth, the young parents shared an upstairs bedroom
1
In violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-37-8.1 and § 11-37-8.2.
2
In violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-9-5.3(b)(1), § 11-9-5.3(c)(2) and § 11-9-5.3(f).
3
The infant has been given a pseudonym, and her immediate family—other than defendant—
will be referred to by only their first names in order to protect the child’s privacy.
-1-
in the Pawtucket home of Brenda’s mother, Donna.4 In August 2009, Brenda was training to be
a certified nursing assistant, which required her to work approximately two to three hours each
morning. Baptista, a certified electrical technician, was working as a cook in Foxboro,
Massachusetts. Donna cared for Anna when both parents were working; otherwise, Brenda and
Baptista cared for their daughter.
On the morning of August 5, 2009, when she departed for work, Brenda left Anna with
Baptista. Brenda finished her scheduled shift and was running errands when she received a text
message from Baptista, stating that Anna had choked on a baby wipe, but adding that she was
fine. Brenda immediately called Baptista to discuss the incident, and Baptista again assured
Brenda that Anna was all right. When Brenda returned home later that afternoon, Anna was
sleeping. The baby immediately began to cry when Brenda picked her up—behavior that the
young mother testified was unusual. Concerned that Baptista might have scratched or otherwise
injured Anna’s throat when retrieving the baby wipe, Brenda spoke with her mother and decided
to bring the infant to Hasbro Children’s Hospital.
Brenda and Baptista took Anna to the hospital’s emergency room, where the infant was
seen by both a resident and an attending physician. Brenda told the doctors that Anna had
choked on a wipe earlier that day and appeared out of sorts. The doctors initially determined that
Anna had a fever and proceeded to examine the child and discovered redness and exudates—
secretions consistent with infection—at the back of Anna’s throat. The infant was tested for
strep throat; however, the test result came back negative. The doctors noted a small bruise on
Anna’s cheek, which they surmised was consistent with a baby of her age attempting to roll over.
The resident physician checked the infant’s range of motion and also noted that there were no
4
Brenda’s older brother, Cory, and Donna’s fiancé, Robert, also lived in the home at the time.
-2-
apparent bruises or areas of tenderness on Anna’s extremities. Brenda also testified that, after
she mentioned that she had seen a tiny spot of blood in the baby’s diaper,5 the resident physician
briefly opened and closed Anna’s diaper, seeing nothing amiss. Anna was diagnosed with a sore
throat and sent home with a prescription for Tylenol. The resident physician also advised the
young parents to follow up with Anna’s pediatrician the next day, and he placed a call to the
pediatrician’s office suggesting that an attempt be made to locate the source of the infection that
was causing the fever.
Brenda testified that she, Anna, and Baptista spent that night together and that she was
never away from the baby. Brenda also testified that Anna slept through the night without
incident. When Brenda left for work around 7 a.m. on the morning of August 6, 2009, she once
again left Anna with Baptista. However, Baptista also had to work that day, and he brought the
baby downstairs to Donna around 9 a.m. Donna testified that Anna seemed stiff and not herself
that morning; the baby’s lips were severely chapped and red. When Brenda returned home a few
hours later, she observed that the infant was in distress. She called Anna’s pediatrician and was
given an appointment with a nurse practitioner for that afternoon.
Donna accompanied her daughter and Anna to the pediatrician’s office, where they
explained that the infant had choked on a baby wipe the previous day and was not acting
normally. Brenda also expressed concern that the baby might have a blood disorder that would
cause her to bruise easily, due to the numerous bruises she discovered in addition to the one on
Anna’s cheek. The nurse practitioner—who had received the phone call the previous night from
the Hasbro emergency room—noted that initially, the baby was smiling and in no apparent
5
Although Brenda testified to telling the doctors about the spot of blood she noticed in Anna’s
diaper before leaving for the hospital, the resident physician testified that he did not recall this
comment and made no note that this had been said to him.
-3-
distress, and began the examination by trying to locate the source of the infection causing Anna’s
fever.
The nurse—assisted by an office assistant—attempted to insert a catheter in order to test
for a urinary tract infection. This procedure required her to retract the infant’s labia in order to
insert the catheter, at which point a tear of the child’s vagina—which was red and swollen—
became apparent. The baby soon became uncooperative and the nurse was unable to complete
the procedure. The nurse also noted bruises—in addition to the small bruise on Anna’s cheek—
on the baby’s upper forearms and inner thighs, and abrasions around her mouth. The office
assistant then asked Brenda, “What’s going on at home?”—at which point the young mother
became very upset. The nurse then explained to Brenda and Donna that she was required to
report her findings to the Department for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). Brenda and her
mother were then asked to take Anna to a nearby lab to have blood work performed and to obtain
the results of the urine sample from a small plastic collection bag that was placed in Anna’s
diaper.
Donna testified that she and Brenda took the infant to two different laboratories for the
blood and urine tests and then returned home with the baby. Brenda then left for a short time in
order to retrieve her cell phone from a repair store in Cranston. While she was out, an
investigator from DCYF arrived at the house and asked that Donna take Anna to Hasbro
Children’s Hospital for another examination. Soon thereafter, Donna and Baptista, who had
returned from work, took the infant to the hospital; Brenda met them at the hospital.
Doctor Carol Jenny (Dr. Jenny), the director of the Hasbro Child Protection Program, and
Dr. Rachel Clinenpeel (Dr. Clinenpeel), a fellow in the program, examined Anna in the hospital
emergency room. Doctor Jenny testified that she observed bruises and abrasions on Anna’s face,
-4-
inside the infant’s mouth and in her throat; as well as a complete rupture of the baby’s
frenulum—the tendon that connects the tongue to the mouth. Doctor Jenny testified that the
injuries were caused by the forceful insertion of an object into the baby’s mouth and that the
injuries were recent—having occurred no more than three to five days prior. In addition,
Dr. Jenny found significant bruising and inflammation of the baby’s labia and vagina, as well as
a significant laceration of the hymen which extended to the exterior skin. The doctor testified
that the genital trauma was no more than a few days old.
Based on her findings, Dr. Jenny placed a seventy-two hour hold on the baby, and
admitted Anna to the hospital. Brenda testified that she and her mother became hysterical upon
hearing that the child would need to be held at the hospital for further testing, while Baptista sat
silently, patting Brenda’s back. Further testing at the hospital revealed that Anna had ten rib
fractures that were less than three days old; a fracture of her upper right humerus—the long bone
of the upper arm—that was healing; and a recent fracture of her upper left humerus that had not
yet begun to heal. Doctor Jenny testified that the rib fractures were likely caused by forcible
squeezing, noting that babies’ ribs are flexible and do not break easily.
From the hospital, Brenda and Baptista were transported—in separate police cars—to the
Pawtucket police station for questioning; Donna followed in her own car. Detective Richard
LaForest (Det. LaForest) testified that after advising Baptista of his Miranda rights, he agreed to
give a written statement. In his statement, defendant explained that Anna had choked on a baby
wipe the day before and that, when he pulled the wipe from her mouth, it was bloody and the
child vomited. The defendant further stated that when they brought the baby to the hospital on
the evening of August 5, he thought he might have scratched Anna’s throat when extracting the
wipe.
-5-
Brenda and her mother consented to the request of Det. Jeffrey Allen (Det. Allen) to
search the couple’s bedroom. A cloth that appeared to have bloodstains on it was removed from
the baby’s diaper pail, along with other items including bed sheets, baby wipes, and infant
pajamas. Some of the items were taken to the Department of Health Forensic Biology
Laboratory for testing.6 Anna’s blood was found on the cloth and wipes; a small amount of
DNA—from someone other than Anna and Baptista—also was detected.
The next day, Friday, August 7, 2009, the couple returned to the police station for further
questioning. Detective Charles Devine (Det. Devine) testified that he reviewed the statements
previously provided by Anna’s parents and then spoke with Dr. Clinenpeel at the hospital. He
again advised defendant of his constitutional rights and defendant signed and dated another
rights form. Detective Devine and Det. LaForest then conducted an unrecorded interview of
defendant. Detective Devine testified that he showed Baptista close-up photographs of the
injuries to Anna’s mouth and genitalia, and told him that according to the doctors, Anna’s
injuries could not have happened as he had described. Detective Devine testified that he then
told Baptista he needed to tell the detectives what had happened to Anna because she could not
speak for herself. According to Det. Devine, after several moments of silence, Baptista told
them “I did it,” and disclosed that he had inserted his finger into Anna’s vagina, and that he had
put his erect penis in the baby’s mouth and ejaculated. Detective Devine testified that defendant
stated that he then placed a wipe in the baby’s mouth—which caused her to choke—and that he
used a rag to clean the blood from her vaginal area.
After this unrecorded conversation, Det. Devine undertook a videotaped interview,
6
For an unexplained reason, only some of the items seized from the home were actually tested
for DNA. Notably, the pajamas that Anna was wearing at the alleged time of the sexual
molestation were not tested, even though vomit or mucus stains were visible on the front of the
garment.
-6-
during which defendant gave a similar statement while Det. Devine simultaneously typed what
was being said. The defendant once again explained how he had sexually abused the infant and
then inquired whether Anna would be released from the hospital. The video recording reveals
that Det. Devine responded that it was customary for the hospital to hold the child for seventy-
two hours, and that it was up to the hospital, DCYF, and the court system to decide where she
would be placed after that. Detective Devine clarified that, although he could not state precisely
where Anna would be placed, he assured defendant that “they make every effort to place the
child with a biological relative * * * so you know every effort [is] going to be made to get her
back to Brenda or Brenda’s mother.” The defendant’s typed statement was then printed and read
aloud to defendant. The defendant requested that two minor changes be made to the statement
before he signed it. Shortly thereafter the police were informed that the X-rays revealed that
Anna’s ribs and arms also were fractured. Baptista was then questioned further and explained, in
great detail, how he inflicted those injuries.
Baptista was arrested and subsequently charged by criminal indictment with four felony
offenses: two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault, one by digital/vaginal
penetration (count 1) and one by fellatio (count 2) in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-37-8.1 and
§ 11-37-8.2, and two counts of first-degree child abuse on a child under the age of five relating to
the infant’s rib fractures (count 3) and arm fractures (count 4), in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-9-
5.3(b)(1), § 11-9-5.3(c)(2) and § 11-9-5.3(f).
A jury trial commenced on February 16, 2011, and continued over the course of six days.
At trial, defendant did not challenge the admissibility of his statements to police,7 and proceeded
7
The record reflects that a motion to suppress the items seized and defendant’s statements to
police was filed with the Superior Court. However, although a suppression hearing concerning
the seized items was held, there is no indication that the motion to suppress the statements made
-7-
to testify—in stark contrast to his confession—that Anna had choked on a baby wipe and that he
was not responsible for the extensive injuries inflicted upon his daughter. The defendant also
claimed that he had falsely confessed to harming Anna so that the infant would be allowed to
return home rather than be placed in foster care. On March 2, 2011—after three full days of
deliberation—the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts. The defendant’s motion for a
new trial was heard and denied by the trial justice; and, on May 16, 2011, Baptista was sentenced
to concurrent life sentences on each count of child molestation. On counts 3 and 4, defendant
received concurrent sentences of twenty years, ten to serve, with eight and one-half years to
serve prior to eligibility for parole, to run consecutively to the sentences imposed on counts 1
and 2. Before this Court, defendant assigns error to the decision of the trial justice denying his
motion for a new trial.
Standard of Review
It is well established that when presented with a motion for a new trial, “the trial justice
must determine ‘whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient for the jury to conclude guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Staffier, 21 A.3d 287, 290 (R.I. 2011) (quoting State v.
Peoples, 996 A.2d 660, 664 (R.I. 2010)). In doing so, “the trial justice acts as a thirteenth juror,
exercising ‘independent judgment on the credibility of witnesses and on the weight of the
evidence.’” Id. (quoting State v. Heredia, 10 A.3d 443, 446 (R.I. 2010)). Specifically, this
requires that “the trial justice must (1) consider the evidence in light of the jury charge,
(2) independently assess the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and then
(3) determine whether he or she would have reached a result different from that reached by the
jury.” State v. Paola, 59 A.3d 99, 104 (R.I. 2013) (quoting State v. Vargas, 21 A.3d 347, 354
to police was addressed.
-8-
(R.I. 2011)).
“If, after conducting such a review, the trial justice reaches the same conclusion as the
jury, the verdict should be affirmed and the motion for a new trial denied.” Paola, 59 A.3d at
104 (quoting Heredia, 10 A.3d at 446). However, if the trial justice does not agree with the jury
verdict, “he or she is required to proceed to a fourth step * * * to ‘determine whether the verdict
is against the fair preponderance of the evidence and fails to do substantial justice.’” Staffier, 21
A.3d at 290-91 (quoting State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759, 765-66 (R.I. 2011)). “If the verdict meets
this standard, then a new trial may be granted.” Id. at 291 (quoting Guerra, 12 A.3d at 766).
“On appeal, this Court accords ‘great weight to a trial justice’s ruling on a motion for a
new trial if he or she has articulated sufficient reasoning in support of the ruling.’” State v.
Rosario, 35 A.3d 938, 947 (R.I. 2012) (quoting State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132, 140-41 (R.I.
2008)). A trial justice’s determination will therefore be “left undisturbed unless the trial justice
overlooked or misconceived material evidence or otherwise was clearly wrong.” Paola, 59 A.3d
at 104 (quoting State v. Smith, 39 A.3d 669, 673 (R.I. 2012)). This Court employs a “deferential
standard of review because ‘a trial justice, being present during all phases of the trial, is in an
especially good position to evaluate the facts and to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’” Id.(quoting Texieira, 944 A.2d at 141).
Analysis
The defendant’s sole challenge on appeal is to the decision of the trial justice denying his
motion for a new trial; he argues that the trial justice overlooked and misconstrued material and
relevant evidence. Specifically, defendant argues that the medical evidence conclusively
established that when the emergency room doctors examined Anna on the evening of August 5,
2009, she had not been injured. The defendant contends that he therefore could not have
-9-
inflicted the injuries because he was never alone with the infant after that initial hospital visit.
The defendant also argues that testimony presented at trial established that the bloody wipes,
diapers, and clothes seized in the early morning hours of August 7, 2009 were not discovered
until after the first visit to Hasbro and therefore were not present at the time when the state
alleges the molestation occurred. Therefore, Baptista maintains, the trial justice overlooked the
timing of Anna’s injuries, as well as the fact that defendant’s DNA was not found on the items
tested, although a DNA profile of someone other than Anna or defendant was discovered.
Lastly, defendant submits that, in denying his motion for a new trial, the trial justice’s view was
clouded by his false confession—which defendant claims to have given only to keep Anna from
being placed in foster care.
We are cognizant that ruling on a motion for a new trial is a responsibility uniquely
entrusted to the trial justice. Our careful review of the record in this case shows that the trial
justice thoroughly evaluated and discussed the testimony and evidence presented and issued a
comprehensive bench decision, setting forth her reasons for denying the motion for a new trial.
In this case, the trial justice determined that the state had, in fact, proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that the offenses charged were committed against Anna and that the state had also proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that it was defendant who perpetrated those crimes against his infant
daughter.
Concerning the timing of the injuries, the trial justice observed that on August 5, 2009,
Anna was presented at the emergency room with the story—concocted by defendant—that the
infant had choked on a baby wipe. The doctors proceeded to examine the child for injuries
consistent with this account. Anna’s throat was red and she had a temperature. The doctors
briefly opened her diaper to determine if a rash was causing her fever; however, seeing no rash,
- 10 -
the doctors closed her diaper, and no further examination of her genital area was conducted. The
trial justice noted that the extent of the examination on August 5 was limited and unremarkable,
but that the doctor who examined the infant not only requested that her parents follow up with
Anna’s pediatrician, he placed a call to the pediatrician’s office.
The trial justice also deemed highly credible the testimony of the pediatric nurse who
examined Anna on August 6, 2009. That testimony established that bruises on the baby’s arms
and thighs were apparent the very next day after the initial visit to the emergency room. Then, in
searching for the source of Anna’s fever, the nurse discovered external injuries to Anna’s vagina
and—for the first time—the possibility that the infant had suffered some type of physical abuse
arose.
Finally, the trial justice noted that Dr. Jenny’s comprehensive examination of Anna was
specifically undertaken to search for signs of abuse. It was during this examination that Anna’s
broken bones were discovered after a full body X-ray scan; also discovered then was the fact that
her hymen was torn and that there was a complete rupture of the tiny tendon beneath the infant’s
tongue. The trial justice rejected defendant’s contention that, because the full extent of Anna’s
injuries was not found until Dr. Jenny’s examination, those injuries were somehow inflicted
overnight, after the first visit to Hasbro. The trial justice drew the reasonable inference that the
injuries Anna sustained “became more visible with time,” and she found Dr. Jenny’s testimony
concerning the age of the injuries and an infant’s normal healing rate to be highly credible.
The trial justice also specified that “the absence of DNA evidence linking defendant to
the crimes did not negate the other evidence identifying him as the perpetrator.” The trial justice
recounted the testimony that seminal fluid would not have remained in the infant’s mouth or
throat for any significant amount of time, and therefore, it was inconsequential that semen was
- 11 -
not discovered. The trial justice also concluded that the presence of a minor unidentified DNA
profile was not significant, noting that the jury reasonably accepted the testimony that this DNA
was inconclusive and could easily have been transferred from another item located near the
source. The trial justice found that there was no scientific evidence reasonably suggesting
another perpetrator, nor was there “one iota of evidence” that anyone other than defendant,
Brenda, or Donna was ever alone with Anna.
Finally, the trial justice found defendant’s version of events “outlandish” in light of the
other testimony and evidence presented in the case. The trial justice observed that defendant’s
testimony did not appear credible and that his demeanor was detached. The trial justice
discounted the claim that he falsely confessed, and recounted that, throughout the videotaped
confession, defendant was told that the child would be held temporarily and that it would then be
up to the hospital, DCYF, and the courts to determine her placement; there was never a
suggestion that the child would be mistreated or kept in foster care. The trial justice found it
especially inconceivable that, while not disputing that someone had brutally raped and broken
the bones of his infant daughter, defendant claims to have confessed so that Anna could be
returned to the home where it could happen again by some unknown perpetrator. Although the
trial justice noted the “powerful evidence of the defendant’s confession,” she also identified the
presence of the baby’s blood on the items tested as corroborative proof. Moreover, defendant’s
videotaped confession showed that, when the detectives learned about Anna’s broken bones,
defendant described how he had inflicted those injuries in a detailed manner, demonstrating
personal knowledge and not speculation. After careful review of the record, we are satisfied that
the trial justice articulated sufficient reasoning for reaching the same conclusion as the jury and
denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
- 12 -
The defendant further argues that the trial justice erred by denying his motion for a new
trial because the verdict was against the fair preponderance of the evidence and failed to do
substantial justice between the parties. We deem this argument misplaced. It is only when a trial
justice disagrees with the jury’s verdict that he or she must proceed to the fourth step of the new
trial analysis and examine the verdict for substantial justice. Staffier, 21 A.3d at 290-91 (citing
Guerra, 12 A.3d at 765-66).
Here, the trial justice reviewed the evidence and noted that the jury verdict was supported
by the evidence adduced at trial. The trial justice also thoroughly addressed the issues raised by
the defendant on appeal. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the trial justice conducted the
appropriate analysis and reached the same result as the jury after considering the evidence
presented in light of the jury charge and independently assessing the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight of the evidence. The trial justice determined that sufficient evidence was
presented for the jury to find the defendant guilty on all counts charged. She then articulated an
acceptable rationale for denying the defendant’s motion. Thus, having neither misconceived nor
overlooked material evidence, when the trial justice determined that she agreed with the jury’s
verdict, this inquiry properly concluded.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of conviction. The
papers in this case may be remanded to the Superior Court.
- 13 -
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: State v. Emanuel Baptista.
CASE NO: No. 2012-11-C.A.
(P1/09-2502)
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE OPINION FILED: November 18, 2013
JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg
SOURCE OF APPEAL: Providence County Superior Court
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
Associate Justice Netti C. Vogel
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For State: Virginia M. McGinn
Department of Attorney General
For Defendant: Janice M. Weisfeld
Office of the Public Defender