## Facts

- In the early morning of March 19, 1987, Elsie M., a 73-year-old woman living alone in a first-floor apartment, was attacked by an intruder who entered her home and beat her with a metal bar.
- The apartment’s layout ran from a front parlor to a kitchen and then to Elsie’s bedroom. The lighting at the time of the attack was disputed, and the encounter occurred quickly and under stressful conditions.
- Immediately after the incident, Elsie was unable to identify any person as the attacker.
- Eric Ranieri was later charged with burglary and assault with a dangerous weapon.
- About 18 months after the assault—on the night before trial—Elsie first identified Ranieri as the perpetrator.
- At trial, Elsie testified that she “knew” the attacker was Ranieri because he was “always watching” her, even though she claimed she did not actually see the attacker during the incident.
- Over objection, Elsie was also permitted to testify that Ranieri spied on her through a neighbor’s window and that he had broken into her home multiple times before, even though she had never actually seen Ranieri commit those acts and offered no direct proof tying him to them.
- The State also presented identification testimony from another witness who had only a brief, limited opportunity to observe the attacker during the incident.
- Ranieri was convicted of burglary and assault with a dangerous weapon, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing the victim to identify Ranieri and to offer related testimony when her claimed basis for “knowing” the perpetrator was not grounded in personal observation.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s testimony that Ranieri had previously spied on her and broken into her home, despite her lack of personal knowledge supporting those claims.
3. Whether the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence in time for effective use at trial.
4. Whether admission of a statement suggesting the defendant threatened a witness, and/or alleged inconsistency between the verdicts, required reversal.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the judgments of conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the trial court improperly admitted highly prejudicial testimony from the victim about prior “spying” and prior break-ins that was not based on personal knowledge.
- In a case in which identification was the central dispute and the State’s proof of identity was weak, the improper admission of speculative, accusatory testimony was not harmless.
- The court did not grant relief solely on the inconsistent-verdict argument and addressed other claims only to the extent necessary in light of the remand.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 602, a witness may testify only to matters the witness actually perceived; testimony resting on suspicion, assumption, or belief rather than observation lacks the required personal knowledge and should be excluded.
- When identity is disputed and the identification proof is thin, evidentiary errors that add unfairly prejudicial accusations—especially allegations resembling prior bad acts—carry a heightened risk of affecting the verdict.
- Evidence implying prior misconduct may not be admitted through speculation or unsupported assertions; a party must establish a proper foundation tied to the witness’s actual knowledge, and the trial court must guard against unfair prejudice.
- Even if some evidence is admissible, the trial court must limit testimony that invites the jury to convict based on character or prior wrongdoing rather than proof of the charged offenses.
- Claims of nondisclosure of favorable evidence are evaluated for materiality and prejudice in the context of the whole record; when combined with significant evidentiary error in a close case, a new trial may be required.

## Conclusion

Because the prosecution’s case turned on contested identification and the trial court permitted the victim to offer speculative, highly prejudicial testimony accusing Ranieri of prior spying and repeated break-ins without personal knowledge, the Supreme Court vacated the convictions and ordered a new trial.


State v. Ranieri, 586 A.2d 1094 (1991)