State v. Mosley

320 A.3d 942

STATE

v.Thomas MOSLEY.

No. 2022-13-C.A. (P1/16-2491AG)

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

August 28, 2024

Providence County Superior Court, Associate Justice Robert D. Krause

Virginia M. McGinn, Department of Attorney General, for State.

Jodi M. Gladstone, Esq., for Defendant.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Goldberg, for the Court.

On the afternoon of August 13, 2014, a gunman entered Yusef A’Vant’s Krazy Kuts barbershop in East Providence, Rhode Island. A scuffle ensued, the result of which ended with A’Vant sustaining a fatal gunshot wound to the chest. After two trials, the defendant, Thomas Mosley (Mosley or defendant), was convicted on multiple counts, including second-degree murder. On appeal, the defendant identifies twenty-one appellate issues for our consideration. Having carefully scoured the voluminous record and the parties’ arguments, we discern no error. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.¹

Facts and Travel

Derek Winslow and A’Vant had an acrimonious relationship, leading Winslow to declare that he wanted A’Vant "got," which in street parlance evidently signifies "murdered." Winslow enlisted the assistance of Evan Watson; and after initially agreeing to kill A’Vant, Watson declined, advising Winslow that he "had a bad feeling," which proved prophetic. Undeterred, Winslow conscripted a replacement, Mosley; and in a subsequent conversation, Watson agreed to supply the gun and to drive Mosley to and from the barbershop. Thereafter, Watson testified against defendant and for the prosecution.

At trial, Watson provided critical testimony implicating Mosley in A’Vant’s murder. He admitted providing a loaded .38 caliber revolver and driving Mosley to the barbershop. Watson detailed the route driven and described that, as they approached the barbershop, defendant reached into the glove compartment, retrieved the loaded revolver, and proceeded in the direction of the barbershop. He was not gone long. Watson testified that within minutes he heard gunshots and "immediately" thereafter witnessed defendant jogging back to the vehicle. As Watson drove away, Mosley stated to Watson, "it wasn’t, like, supposed to go down like that" and "someone might have saw [me]."

Seth Waters also testified and explained that he visited the barbershop during his lunch break for a haircut. According to Waters, within minutes of his arrival, a male opened the barbershop door, pointed a gun at his head, and told him "to get on the floor." Waters complied, and although he was not an eyewitness—because he was face-down on the floor—Waters recalled hearing A’Vant exclaim, "[y]ou’ve got to be kidding me," the sounds of a scuffle, and then the explosion of a gunshot. After the gunman fled the barbershop, Waters stood up and discovered A’Vant, bleeding from his stomach or chest area. Waters described the assailant to police and later assisted in compiling a composite sketch of the gunman.

According to Rithy Suon, Mosley’s then-girlfriend and the mother of his child, one evening Mosley showed her a composite sketch. After Suon inquired concerning the significance of the sketch, Mosley smirked and mused that the sketch "was supposed to look like him." While Suon testified that she was not, at that time, unduly alarmed by defendant’s comment, Suon recounted that later, after Mosley’s arrest, he advised her that she was going to hear a recording of himself and a person Mosley referred to as "Little" (Michael Drepaul), with their infant son in the background.

Suon related that Mosley directed her to tell "them" that she did not recognize any of the voices on the recording, an instruction she assumed meant the police.

Drepaul testified concerning firsthand knowledge of the forewarned conversation, which he had recorded surreptitiously at defendant’s home. Drepaul related that, with the assistance of officers from the Providence Police Department, he concealed a recorder in the pocket of his shorts, visited Mosley at his residence, and engaged Mosley in a lengthy conversation. After discussing matters not germane to this opinion, the conversation changed to a different topic. Without specifically mentioning the barbershop or A’Vant, Mosley recalled exiting a building and "hearing sirens. Like, I’m thinking that shit’s for me." Mosley continued and described that he

"rushes out and as I coming out * * * I’m hearing the sirens. * * * So in my mind I’m like * * * I, I, I looked, walked for a second and dipped * * * as I’m hitting the corner I see Staties flying by,² * * * Soon as I hit that comer, soon as I could -, soon as I hit that corner where they couldn’t see me, ‘boom,’ took off. Floated. And fucking jumped in the wheels, jumped in the wheels."

Mosley’s recitation of events also largely corroborated Watson’s testimony concerning statements made by defendant during the getaway:

"[W]hat happened was I was supposed to shake [A’Vant] up. [A’Vant] got funky fresh. You know what I’m saying? I had to give it to him. You know what I’m saying? I was supposed to shake [A’Vant] up. Yo drop to the floor. You know what I’m saying? Bust a shot and be out."³

After Drepaul questioned whether "[h]e was the only one," defendant replied: "No, I’m saying I let the other one go. I don’t think the other one, he got a good look at me, know what I’m saying"; and "[t]he other [person] stayed laying down."⁴

Providence Police Detective Theodore Michael also testified and was qualified as an expert in digital forensics, specifically geolocation with respect to Wi-Fi, GPS, and cellular site locations. After obtaining a search warrant to seize Wi-Fi location data associated with defendant’s Google account, Det. Michael testified that he was able to trace the location of defendant’s cellular telephone through its connection to Wi-Fi access points. Utilizing this method and data, Det. Michael determined that on August 13, 2014—the date of the murder—defendant’s cellular telephone was located in Cranston at 1:45 p.m., moved in the direction of East Providence, and remained within a twenty-seven-to fifty-three-yard radius of the vicinity of the barbershop from 1:56 p.m. until 2:03 p.m. At 2:13 p.m., defendant’s cellular telephone was tracked to within an approximate thirty-yard radius of 15 Princeton Avenue in Providence, Mosley’s residence. Detective Michael also testified that on the late evening of August 11, 2014, to early morning of August 12, 2014—the day before the murder—defendant’s cellular telephone was located in the vicinity of 68 Whipple Street in Cranston (Winslow’s residence), traveled to the barbershop in East Providence, with a radial proximity between twenty-six yards and seventy-one yards, and then traversed back to the vicinity of 68 Whipple Street.

On or about August 26, 2016, a grand jury returned a seven-count indictment against Mosley. On the same date, and as part of the same indictment, the grand jury returned a four-count indictment against Watson. The indictment charged both with murder; conspiracy to commit an unlawful act, to wit, murder; carrying a firearm without a license; and discharging a firearm while in the commission of a crime of violence. Mosley additionally was charged with three counts of obstruction of the judicial system, stemming from his instruction to Suon that she tell police that she did not recognize the voices on the Drepaul recording, as well as two recorded telephone conversations Mosley made while he was incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions encouraging family members or friends to tell Suon not to cooperate with law enforcement officials. Watson’s case was severed from that of defendant’s based on his cooperation.

A jury trial commenced in the fall of 2019, at the conclusion of which Mosley was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license (count 3), discharging a fire-aim while in the commission of a crime of violence (count 4), and all three obstruction of justice counts (counts 5 to 7). The jury deadlocked on the remaining counts, murder (count 1) and conspiracy to commit murder (count 2). The trial justice subsequently denied defendant’s motion for a new trial with respect to count 3 and counts 5 to 7, but granted the motion for a new trial with respect to count 4, discharging a firearm while in the commission of a crime of violence.

In February 2020, a second trial ensued, encompassing the murder charge (count 1), the charge of conspiracy to commit murder (count 2), and the charge of discharging a firearm while in the commission of a crime of violence (count 4). The jury convicted Mosley of second-degree murder and discharging a firearm while in the commission of a crime of violence, and acquitted defendant of the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. After denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, the trial justice sentenced Mosley to consecutive life sentences on counts 1 and 4, a ten-year concurrent sentence on count 3, and five years on counts 5 to 7, to be served concurrently, but consecutively to count 4. The trial justice also determined that defendant qualified as a habitual offender pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 12-19-21, and sentenced him to an additional twenty-year consecutive sentence, with ten years to be served and without parole at the ACI.⁵ This appeal ensued.

Additional salient facts will be set forth as necessary.

Discussion

Mosley raises twenty-one appellate issues for our consideration. As discussed herein, the law with respect to these legal issues is well-trod and adverse to Mosley’s position. For organizational purposes, we combine appellate arguments raising similar issues or legal principles.

A Double Jeopardy

At the conclusion of the first trial, the jury found defendant guilty of carrying a firearm without a license (count 3), discharging a firearm while in the commission of a crime of violence (count 4), and three counts of obstruction of justice (counts 5 to 7). The jury was deadlocked on the murder...