State v. Olayinka Alege: Clarifying the Threshold for Franks Hearings on Arrest Warrants and the Admissibility of Similar-Act Evidence under Rule 404(b)

Introduction

State v. Olayinka Alege, No. 2024-105-C.A. (R.I. July 14, 2025), presented the Rhode Island Supreme Court with a potpourri of pre-trial and trial-management questions arising from a misdemeanor assault charged after an unusual encounter inside a Warwick gym. Although factually modest, the appeal raised four doctrinally significant issues:

Whether the defendant was entitled to a Franks¹ evidentiary hearing to challenge an arrest warrant affidavit;
Whether the trial justice erred by admitting testimony of a prior, strikingly similar foot-touching incident under Rule 404(b);
Whether the presiding justice should have recused himself due to alleged bias; and
Whether the one-year suspended sentence with probation and community service was constitutionally disproportionate.

The Court summarily affirmed the conviction, but in doing so it offered fresh guidance—most notably on the showing necessary to unlock a Franks hearing when the challenged warrant is for arrest (not search), and on the analytical pathway that trial judges must follow when admitting evidence of prior consensual conduct to prove intent or plan in a subsequent non-consensual touching.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Robinson, writing for a unanimous Court (Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, & Long, JJ.), held:

The defendant failed to make a “substantial preliminary showing” that the officer’s statement about surveillance video was deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth; hence, no Franks hearing was required, and the warrant remained valid.
The similarities between the charged conduct and an earlier gym-locker-room incident rendered the prior-act testimony probative of “intent, motive, or plan;” the trial justice’s careful limiting instruction and analysis satisfied Rule 404(b) and Rule 403.
The scheduling decisions and comments relied upon by the defendant did not demonstrate personal bias; therefore, denial of the recusal motion was appropriate.
Sentencing challenges were not properly before the Court because the defendant failed to file a Rule 35 motion and no extraordinary circumstance existed.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) – Established the right to an evidentiary hearing when a defendant offers a substantial preliminary showing that a warrant affidavit contains intentional or reckless falsehoods essential to probable cause. The Court assumed, without deciding, that Franks applies equally to arrest warrants in Rhode Island, thereby implicitly widening the doctrine’s reach.
State v. Hudgen, 272 A.3d 1069 (R.I. 2022) – Articulated the state standard for Franks motions; used by the trial justice as the controlling test.
United States v. Barbosa, 896 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2018) – Provided federal articulation that arrest-warrant affidavits must show a “fair probability” of criminality; cited to frame the Fourth-Amendment inquiry.
State v. Reis, 815 A.2d 57 (R.I. 2003), and State v. Pratt, 641 A.2d 732 (R.I. 1994) – Key Rule 404(b) precedents on balancing probative value against prejudice.
State v. Sorel, 746 A.2d 704 (R.I. 2000); State v. Perez, 161 A.3d 487 (R.I. 2017) – Provided guidance for determining “sufficient similarity” of prior acts.
Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 118 R.I. 608 (1977), and Mattatall v. State, 947 A.2d 896 (R.I. 2008) – Controlled the recusal analysis.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The Franks Claim

The defendant highlighted a single sentence in the affidavit: “Officers were able to obtain Edge Fitness video surveillance of the incident, which supports the victim's version of events.” He argued the video did not depict the five detailed facts in the victim’s statement and thus the affiant misled the magistrate.

The Court’s rejection relied on three pillars:

The video, while subject to interpretation, plainly showed proximity and interaction—enough to “support” the narrative in a colloquial sense; the statement was therefore not materially false.
Even if excised, the victim’s own statement supplied independent probable cause; under Franks, if probable cause survives after redaction, no hearing ensues.
The defendant provided no proof of deliberate falsity or reckless disregard—only argument.

Doctrinal Note: The Court’s willingness to assume, without deciding, that Franks governs arrest warrants signals a practical alignment with federal circuits that already treat search and arrest warrants identically for these purposes. Trial courts should therefore proceed as though the Franks framework applies in both contexts, at least until explicitly held otherwise.

2. Rule 404(b) Evidence

The challenged testimony involved another adult male, Alexander Harrington, who described an encounter with the defendant six weeks prior to the charged incident:

Identical location (Edge Fitness, Warwick).
Initiated by defendant’s question about Converse sneakers.
Progression from shoe inquiry to sock removal to physical foot contact.

The Court endorsed the trial justice’s three-step analysis:

Relevance – The pattern of approach and conduct tended to prove that the charged act was purposeful, not accidental or mistaken.
Proper Purpose – Admitted for intent, motive, or plan (expressly not for propensity).
Rule 403 Balance – Probative value outweighed prejudice; the judge supplied a contemporaneous limiting instruction.

The ruling underscores that striking similarity does not require carbon-copy identity; shared modus operandi in initiating contact sufficed.

3. Recusal

The Court reiterated that dislike of rulings or scheduling hardships do not equal judicial bias. The chronology showed the trial justice repeatedly accommodated defense requests while maintaining orderly docket control—conduct that “hardly evidences bias.”

4. Sentencing Preservation

Because no Rule 35 motion was filed and no extraordinary circumstances were shown, the challenge was procedurally defaulted—reinforcing a strict preservation rule for sentencing appeals.

C. Impact on Future Litigation

Clearer Path for Franks Challenges – Defendants must identify specific factual misstatements in arrest-warrant affidavits and proffer evidence of intentional or reckless falsity; mere argumentative disagreement with the officer’s characterization of video will not pass the gate.
Rule 404(b) Roadmap – Trial courts now have an exemplar for admitting similar-act evidence in sexual or bodily-contact misdemeanors. The decision validates that prior consensual conduct can still illuminate intent in a later non-consensual act when key approach features overlap.
Trial-Management Deference – The Court signalled high tolerance for active case-management, continually linking recusal analysis to objective docket facts.
Sentencing Preservation Strictness – Practitioners are reminded that Rule 35 motions are mandatory for appellate review absent exceptional situations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Franks Hearing: A mini-trial held before the actual trial to determine whether police intentionally or recklessly lied or omitted key facts in a warrant affidavit. Only granted if the defendant first shows (1) a likely false statement, (2) made intentionally or recklessly, and (3) necessary to probable cause.
Probable Cause: The “fair probability” standard that a crime was committed and the accused committed it—lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” higher than “mere suspicion.”
Rule 404(b) Evidence: Evidence of other bad acts, crimes, or wrongs. Generally inadmissible to show propensity but admissible for limited reasons—such as proving intent, motive, plan, or absence of mistake—if probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.
Limiting Instruction: A direction from the judge telling jurors the limited purpose for which they may consider certain evidence, designed to mitigate prejudice.
Rule 35 Motion: A post-sentence motion in the Superior Court seeking to correct, reduce, or modify a sentence. Required before appealing the legality or excessiveness of a sentence.

Conclusion

State v. Alege may not involve high-stakes felonies, yet its precedential value is considerable. The Court:

Affirmed that Franks relief remains an exceptional remedy, especially when probable cause stands without the challenged statement.
Provided a detailed template for admitting prior-act evidence in assault and sexual-misconduct trials by focusing on the deliberate initiation of contact as probative of intent or plan.
Reinforced the heavy burden on parties seeking judicial disqualification and the procedural rigor demanded for sentencing appeals.

Practitioners should view Alege as both a cautionary tale and a guidebook: allegations of affidavit falsehood must be substantiated; prosecutors must thread the Rule 404(b) needle with similarity and careful instructions; and defense counsel must preserve sentencing issues through timely Rule 35 motions. Collectively, these clarifications advance the twin goals of procedural fairness and efficient judicial administration in Rhode Island’s criminal courts.

¹ Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).