Precision in Objections: State v. Jose Lantigua (R.I. 2025) Establishes a Specificity Requirement for Challenging Expert “Bolstering” Testimony

1. Introduction

State v. Lantigua, decided by the Rhode Island Supreme Court on 3 July 2025, addresses the admissibility of expert testimony that arguably “bolsters” a complaining witness’s credibility in a child-molestation prosecution. The Court affirmed the convictions after concluding that defense counsel failed to preserve the bolstering issue for appellate review because his objections lacked the necessary specificity and he neither moved to strike the answers nor requested a curative instruction.

The precedent crystallises two intertwined concepts: (i) the narrow scope of permissible expert testimony under R.I. Evid. R. 803(4) in sexual-abuse cases, and (ii) the “raise-or-waive” doctrine’s demand that objections to such testimony be timely, precise, and renewed at trial, notwithstanding a prior motion in limine.

Parties:
• State of Rhode Island (prosecution).
• Jose Lantigua (defendant, appellant).
Key Issue on Appeal: Whether the trial justice erred by allowing a paediatric abuse expert, Dr. Amy Goldberg, to testify that the child’s disclosure was “consistent with sexual abuse” when no physical signs existed, thereby allegedly impermissibly bolstering credibility.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The jury convicted Lantigua on one count of first-degree and one count of second-degree child molestation. He was sentenced to 60 years (25 to serve).
• On appeal, Lantigua asserted that Dr. Goldberg’s opinion—grounded solely in the child’s statements rather than physical findings—constituted inadmissible bolstering.
• The Supreme Court held that the defense waived the issue. Although counsel objected once to whether the expert “had an opinion,” he failed to object to (i) the substance of that opinion, (ii) its repetition, or (iii) to move to strike or seek a cautionary instruction.
• The Court therefore did not reach the merits of whether the testimony was substantively admissible; instead, it affirmed on procedural grounds.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court anchored its ruling in a line of decisions enforcing the raise-or-waive rule and clarifying the preliminary nature of motions in limine:

• State v. Pitts, 990 A.2d 185 (R.I. 2010) — deference to trial-court discretion on evidentiary rulings.
• State v. Colon, 198 A.3d 1249 (R.I. 2019) — reiterated that in-limine rulings are provisional; counsel must object again at trial.
• State v. Buchanan, 81 A.3d 1119 (R.I. 2014) — similar principle, stressing need for renewed objections.
• State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2004) — general objections are insufficient; particulars are required.
• Pollard v. Acer Group, 870 A.2d 429 (R.I. 2005); State v. Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d 12 (R.I. 2009) — illustrate the precision demanded for appellate preservation.

These cases collectively informed the Court’s reasoning that counsel’s single, non-specific objection (“Objection”) did not alert the trial justice to a bolstering issue and thus forfeited appellate review.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Preliminary Nature of Motion in Limine – Because the trial judge deferred ruling until he heard actual testimony, the onus remained on defense counsel to object when the testimony unfolded.
2. Specificity Requirement – Rule 103(a)(1) R.I. Evid. demands that an objection state the specific ground unless apparent from context. Generic objections do not suffice.
3. Failure to Move to Strike / Curative Steps – Even if a question is objectionable, admission of the answer can be remedied only if counsel moves to strike or seeks a cautionary instruction. Defense counsel did neither.
4. No Plain-Error Doctrine in Rhode Island – Unlike the federal system, Rhode Island does not recognise a broad plain-error rule in criminal appeals; preservation is paramount.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

Although framed as a waiver decision, Lantigua has significant forward-looking consequences:

• Trial Practice – Defense attorneys must make pinpoint objections, articulate “bolstering” or “vouching” grounds expressly, and renew those objections if an in-limine request was unsuccessful or undecided.
• Expert Testimony – Prosecutors may continue to elicit “consistency with abuse” opinions from qualified paediatric experts, knowing that reversal requires a properly preserved objection.
• Appellate Strategy – Appeals premised on evidentiary error will face heightened scrutiny regarding preservation; expecting relief without precise trial-level objections is futile.
• Judicial Efficiency – By emphasising preservation, the Court limits appeals based on unpreserved evidentiary issues, thereby reducing remands or retrials.
• Child-Abuse Litigation – The ruling does not definitively sanction or forbid “consistency” testimony; it postpones substantive clarification, ensuring the debate will recur but under stricter preservation protocols.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Bolstering: When a witness (often an expert) improperly vouches for the truthfulness of another witness, thereby infringing the jury’s role as credibility assessor.
• Rule 803(4) Exception: Allows statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment to be admitted as non-hearsay; frequently invoked in sexual-abuse cases because victims’ statements to physicians are diagnostically relevant.
• Motion in Limine: A pre-trial request for a ruling on whether certain evidence will be admissible; rulings are preliminary and can be revisited during trial.
• Raise-or-Waive Rule: A doctrine under which appellate courts will not consider issues not properly preserved by objection or motion in the trial court.
• Motion to Strike: A request that the court remove (and tell the jury to disregard) testimony already heard; essential when an objection comes after an answer is given.
• Rule 29 Motion: A request for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient.

5. Conclusion

State v. Lantigua does not resolve the controversial substantive question of whether an expert may opine that a child’s statements are “consistent with sexual abuse” absent physical corroboration. Instead, it erects — or, more accurately, fortifies — a procedural hurdle: only a precise, contemporaneous, and renewed objection preserves the issue for appeal. Counsel must object specifically to bolstering, move to strike inadmissible answers, and request curative instructions; otherwise, appellate courts will deem the matter waived.

The case thus sharpens trial practice in Rhode Island: evidence may be objectionable, but unless counsel identifies the precise ground at the precise moment, convictions will stand. This decision, therefore, marks an important precedent in evidentiary preservation and signals to the bar that procedural precision is indispensable when confronting expert testimony in sexual-offence prosecutions.