## Facts

- Timothy Mullen was indicted on nine counts under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-10-1 (the “crime against nature” statute), based on alleged acts occurring when the complainant was ages 14 to 17.
- In a bill of particulars, the State limited the charged time period to April 10, 1994 through February 22, 1995, and specified the complainant was over sixteen (the age of consent) during that period.
- While the charges were pending, the Legislature amended § 11-10-1 to remove “with mankind,” leaving the statute to criminalize only bestiality.
- A Superior Court justice dismissed the nine counts, concluding the amendment reflected legislative intent to decriminalize consensual sodomy between persons who had reached the age of consent and to end such prosecutions.
- The State appealed, invoking Rhode Island’s general savings statute, which generally preserves pending prosecutions after repeal unless a contrary legislative intent appears.

## Issues

1. Whether Rhode Island’s general savings statute preserved a pending prosecution under the pre-amendment version of § 11-10-1 after the Legislature removed consensual acts “with mankind” from the statute.
2. Whether continuing to prosecute consensual sodomy involving a person over the age of consent would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent in amending § 11-10-1.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed dismissal of the nine counts and denied the State’s appeal.
- The court held the general savings statute did not preserve this prosecution because applying it would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s manifest intent to decriminalize consensual sodomy between persons who had attained the age of consent.
- The court treated the case as involving consensual conduct within the State’s narrowed bill of particulars; the State did not proceed on separate charges grounded in force, non-consent, or other independent criminal conduct.

## Legal Principles

- A general savings statute ordinarily preserves pending prosecutions after repeal or amendment of a criminal law, but it does not apply when continuation would conflict with the Legislature’s contrary intent.
- The effect of a repeal or amendment on pending prosecutions must be assessed case by case by reading the savings statute in light of the purpose of the repeal or amendment.
- When a statutory amendment narrows criminal liability so that the charged conduct is no longer criminal under the amended law, courts may decline to allow pending prosecutions to proceed if doing so would be repugnant to the amended statute and inconsistent with legislative intent.

## Conclusion

Because the Legislature amended § 11-10-1 to eliminate criminal liability for consensual sodomy between persons who had reached the age of consent, the court held that Rhode Island’s general savings statute did not permit the State to continue prosecuting Mullen for conduct falling within that decriminalized category.


State v. Mullen, 740 A.2d 783 (R.I. 1999)