## Facts

- Christina, the complainant, lived in Woonsocket, Rhode Island and previously had a romantic relationship with Edward Acquisto.
- Early on September 27, 1979, Christina testified she was awakened by Acquisto pounding on her door and threatening to break in; she opened the door and he entered.
- Christina testified Acquisto grabbed her, forced her to the floor, and had sexual intercourse with her by force.
- Police photographs later documented physical injuries, including gouges on her hips and bruises on her neck.
- Christina did not immediately report the assault; she bathed, went to work, and later that day told her manager and contacted police.
- Christina reported receiving threatening phone calls from Acquisto before trial, including a threat to throw acid in her face if she came to court.
- Acquisto asserted an alibi through his mother (Julia Griffin) and a co-worker (Ann Callahan), both senior-companion volunteers, who claimed a strike prevented them from working and that they saw Acquisto at home during the relevant time.
- To rebut the alibi, the state introduced agency payroll records, through a records custodian, showing Griffin and Callahan worked on September 27 and that the strike occurred on earlier dates.

## Issues

1. Whether payroll records used to impeach alibi witnesses were admissible as business records despite hearsay objections and the claim that all record-makers had to testify.
2. Whether the indictment should have been quashed based on alleged incompetence, hearsay character, or insufficiency of evidence presented to the grand jury.
3. Whether evidence of threats toward the complainant constituted impermissible “other crimes/bad acts” propensity evidence.
4. Whether additional evidentiary and trial-management rulings (including limits on cross-examination) required reversal.
5. Whether the evidence and alleged errors, individually or cumulatively, deprived the defendant of a fair trial or rendered the verdict unsupported.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for first-degree sexual assault.
- The court held the payroll records were properly admitted as business records through the testimony of a records custodian; the state was not required to call every participant involved in creating the records.
- The court declined to invalidate the indictment based on challenges to the adequacy, competence, or hearsay nature of the grand jury evidence.
- The court upheld admission of threat evidence because it was relevant for non-propensity purposes, including consciousness of guilt and explaining the complainant’s delay and fear.
- The court found no reversible error in remaining evidentiary rulings and concluded the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Business records may be admitted through a qualified custodian who can explain that the records were made and kept in the ordinary course of regularly conducted activity; admissibility does not require testimony from every person who made or transmitted information for the record.
- An indictment generally is not subject to dismissal because the grand jury heard hearsay or evidence that would be contested under trial evidentiary rules; grand jury proceedings are not bound by trial rules of evidence.
- Evidence of other acts, including threats toward a complainant or witness, is admissible when offered for an independently relevant purpose (such as consciousness of guilt or to explain reporting delay), rather than solely to show criminal propensity.
- Appellate review considers whether challenged rulings caused prejudicial error; affirmed convictions may rest on complainant testimony corroborated by physical evidence and impeachment of defense witnesses.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Acquisto’s conviction, holding that payroll records were admissible as business records to rebut an alibi, that the indictment could not be attacked based on the character or sufficiency of grand jury evidence, and that threats against the complainant were properly admitted for non-propensity purposes such as consciousness of guilt and explaining delayed reporting.


State v. Acquisto, 463 A.2d 122 (R.I. 1983)