State v. Hang – Codefendant Objections and the “Raise-or-Waive” Rule: Rhode Island Supreme Court Clarifies Preservation Requirements

1. Introduction

On 2 July 2025 the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued its opinion in State v. Jaythan Hang, No. 2023-236-C.A., affirming multiple convictions that arose from a 2018 gang-related shooting in Providence. Beyond the case-specific result, the opinion is significant because it clarifies several evidentiary and procedural doctrines—most notably the scope of the state’s “raise-or-waive” preservation rule in joint trials. The Court declined to adopt an exception, urged by the defence and recognised in some other jurisdictions, under which an objection by one defendant suffices to preserve the issue for a silent codefendant. As a result, Rhode Island litigants must assume personal responsibility for contemporaneously objecting to alleged errors, even where a codefendant has already lodged an identical objection.

Key Actors

• Appellant/Defendant: Jaythan Hang (“Ah Jay”), alleged member of the “864” street gang.
• Codefendant: Chandanoeuth Hay (“Big Kay”). Tried jointly but not part of this appeal.
• Co-operator: Kennedy Terrero – accomplice turned state witness.
• Victim: David Page, shot and killed on 26 June 2018.
• Trial Justice: Rodgers, J. (Providence County Superior Court).
• Opinion Author: Long, J. (Rhode Island Supreme Court).

Issues Presented on Appeal

1. Denial of a pre-trial motion to sever.
2. Admission of seven prior bad-act incidents under R.I. Evid. R. 404(b).
3. Admission of two inculpatory statements as statements against penal interest under R.I. Evid. 804(b)(3).
4. Admission of lay-opinion testimony by a police sergeant identifying the suspect vehicle as an Audi under R.I. Evid. 701.
5. Denial of a motion for new trial on the conspiracy count (weight and sufficiency challenges).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed all convictions and all evidentiary rulings. The justices held that:

• The trial justice did not abuse her discretion in refusing to sever Hang’s trial from Hay’s; alleged “spill-over” prejudice was insufficient.
• Four of the seven challenged bad-act incidents were unpreserved for review; the remaining three were properly admitted to show motive, opportunity, plan, and identity, with careful limiting instructions.
• Objections to the 804(b)(3) statements and the lay-opinion testimony were waived for lack of contemporaneous objection.
• The trial justice correctly denied the new-trial motion; sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the conspiracy verdict.
• Most notably, the Court refused to recognise an exception under which a codefendant’s objection preserves an issue for a silent defendant. Each defendant must object individually to avoid waiver.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) – Rejected by the trial court as grounds for severance; codefendant statements were not testimonial or were redacted.
• State v. Parente, 460 A.2d 430 (R.I. 1983) – Joint conspiracy trials are routine; cited to support denial of severance.
• State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012) – Reiterated the “raise-or-waive” rule and the need for specific, contemporaneous objections; heavily relied upon to dismiss several appellate claims.
• United States v. Martinez, 994 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2021) – Cited by defendant; distinguished by the Court because Martinez dealt with extensive non-overlapping evidence against codefendants.
• State v. DeCosta, 293 A.3d 297 (R.I. 2023) – Distinguished on Rule 404(b) grounds; here the prior-act evidence served non-propensity purposes.
• State v. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2020) – Reconstrued for the proposition that preservation requires alerting the trial justice, not merely the record.

In each instance the Court employed prior holdings to emphasise the high deference accorded to trial-level discretion in matters of joinder, evidentiary relevance, Rule 403 balancing, and new-trial motions.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Severance

Applying Rule 14 and Parente, the Court underscored that conspiracy cases presumptively warrant joint trials. Hang’s “spill-over” argument failed because nearly all evidence would have been admissible against him individually, and the lone firearm-after-conviction count against Hay was not unduly prejudicial.

3.2.2 Rule 404(b) Evidence

The Court dissected seven prior incidents. Four were deemed waived. The three preserved incidents (two 2017 shootings and a May 2018 retaliatory shooting) were admissible to show:

• Access to and familiarity with firearms (opportunity).
• Gang rivalry context (motive).
• Common scheme or plan to seek out rivals (absence of accident).

The Court stressed meticulous limiting instructions and the trial justice’s Rule 403 analysis (“marginal relevance vs. enormous prejudice” standard from Pona II).

3.2.3 Raise-or-Waive Rule and Codefendant Objections – The New Clarification

Rhode Island long requires a contemporaneous, specific objection. Hang urged adoption of the Hawaii approach (State v. Bruce) under which one defendant’s objection suffices for all. The Court refused, citing additional purposes of the rule—preventing tactical sandbagging and ensuring each party stands or falls on its own trial strategy. This explicit rejection of a “codefendant objection” exception solidifies Rhode Island precedent and provides litigants with bright-line guidance.

3.2.4 Lay Opinion (Rule 701)

Because Hang never objected, the issue was waived; nonetheless the Court signalled that the testimony likely satisfied Rule 701 (rationally based on perception, helpful to jury).

3.2.5 Sufficiency and New-Trial Motion

The opinion paraphrases the traditional two-step Rhode Island approach: (1) the trial justice acts as “thirteenth juror” on weight; (2) appellate court reviews sufficiency de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favourable to the verdict. Both standards were met. Text messages, surveillance video, cell-site analysis, and post-shooting behaviour (wiping down the Audi) corroborated accomplice testimony and justified the conspiracy conviction.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

1. Preservation Doctrine: Practitioners must make their own objections—even if they echo a codefendant’s—lest they forfeit appellate review. This promotes clarity and reduces tactical manipulation in multi-defendant trials.
2. 404(b) Framework in Gang Cases: The Court reaffirmed a tolerant stance toward prior gang-violence evidence when used to explain motive, context, and plan. Expect prosecutors to rely on this holding to admit similar background evidence.
3. Joint-Trial Strategy: Defence counsel must weigh the higher hurdle for severance in conspiracy cases against the risk of prejudicial background evidence that joint trials often entail.
4. Lay-Opinion Testimony by Police: Although procedurally waived, the dicta suggests continued receptivity to seasoned officers giving non-expert vehicle or weapon identifications if tied to personal perception.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Raise-or-Waive Rule: A Rhode Island appellate court will not consider an alleged error unless the complaining party objected when the error happened, telling the judge exactly what was wrong. Silence equals acceptance.
• Rule 404(b) Evidence: Normally past bad acts can’t prove someone’s character (“he did it before so he did it again”). But they can come in to show things like motive or plan; the judge must also ensure the jury isn’t unfairly inflamed.
• Severance: Trying codefendants together saves time and money. A judge can split trials only if joint trial would be unfairly prejudicial.
• Statement Against Interest (Rule 804(b)(3)): An out-of-court remark that hurts the speaker’s legal position can be admitted even if the speaker is unavailable, because people rarely incriminate themselves falsely.
• Lay vs. Expert Opinion (Rule 701 vs. 702): Any witness can give an opinion if it’s based on what she personally saw and helps the jury; if specialised training is required, the witness must be qualified as an expert.

5. Conclusion

State v. Hang is less about the sensational facts of a gang-related homicide and more about the procedural architecture of Rhode Island criminal trials. By emphatically refusing to dilute the “raise-or-waive” doctrine, the Court set a clear precedent: each defendant must voice his own objections, or forever hold his peace on appeal. The decision also underlines the judiciary’s trust in trial judges to manage Rule 404(b) evidence with tailored limiting instructions and Rule 403 balancing, especially in conspiracy contexts where narrative coherence demands background detail. For litigants and judges alike, Hang provides a succinct, authoritative roadmap on joinder, preservation, evidentiary discretion, and new-trial review—doctrines that shape the daily practice of criminal law in Rhode Island.