The Rhode Island Supreme Court has affirmed the denial of a new trial motion filed by Victor Tavares, who was convicted on two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault. The court's order, issued in case No. 2025-5-C.A., marks the latest chapter in a case that has wound through the state's appellate courts.

Tavares was sentenced to 40 years at the Adult Correctional Institutions, with 30 years to serve on the sexual assault convictions. For the conspiracy charge, he received a 10-year suspended sentence, with all sentences to run concurrently. The convictions stem from charges that were detailed in the court's previous opinion in *State v. Tavares*, 312 A.3d 449 (R.I. 2024).

The current appeal arose from the Superior Court's denial of Tavares's motion for a new trial. After reviewing the parties' arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that "cause has not been shown" and proceeded to decide the appeal, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision.

The central issue in both Tavares's direct appeal and his new trial motion involved alleged discovery violations by the prosecution. Tavares contended that the trial justice erred in not granting a new trial due to the state's failure to comply with Rule 16(a)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Specifically, Tavares argued that during the discovery phase, the state provided a list of approximately 30 expected witnesses. However, when the prosecution concluded its case at trial, only seven witnesses had actually testified. This significant discrepancy between the disclosed witness list and the witnesses who actually appeared at trial formed the basis of Tavares's challenge.

Tavares's legal team argued that this conduct by the prosecution was inconsistent with the Rhode Island Supreme Court's holding in *State v. Verlaque*, 465 A.2d 207 (R.I. 1983). The *Verlaque* case established important precedent regarding the prosecution's disclosure obligations under the state's criminal procedure rules.

Rule 16(a)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the prosecution's duty to disclose information to the defense during the discovery process. The rule is designed to ensure that defendants receive fair notice of the evidence and witnesses that will be presented against them at trial, allowing for adequate preparation of their defense.

During his direct appeal, which was resolved in the 2024 *Tavares* decision, the defendant raised 12 different issues challenging various aspects of his conviction and sentencing. The discovery violation claim was among the most significant of these challenges, given its potential impact on the fundamental fairness of the trial proceedings.

The Supreme Court's decision to affirm the denial of the new trial motion suggests that the justices were not persuaded that the prosecution's conduct regarding witness disclosure rose to the level of a violation that would warrant overturning the conviction or ordering a new trial. The court's brief order indicates that it found no cause to disturb the lower court's ruling.

The case highlights ongoing tensions in criminal procedure regarding the scope and enforcement of discovery obligations. While prosecutors are required to disclose witnesses they expect to call at trial, the practical realities of trial preparation often result in changes to witness lists as cases develop.

Defense attorneys frequently argue that significant changes to witness lists can prejudice their ability to prepare an adequate defense, particularly when the changes result in fewer witnesses than originally disclosed. However, courts must balance these concerns against the prosecution's legitimate need to adapt their case presentation based on evolving circumstances and strategic considerations.

The *Verlaque* precedent, which Tavares cited in support of his appeal, remains an important touchstone for analyzing discovery violations in Rhode Island criminal cases. However, the Supreme Court's decision to affirm the denial of Tavares's new trial motion suggests that the specific facts of his case did not warrant the relief he sought.

The resolution of this appeal brings closure to the appellate proceedings in Tavares's case, barring any potential petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The defendant will continue serving his 30-year active sentence on the sexual assault convictions.

This case serves as a reminder of the high bar that defendants face when challenging convictions based on alleged discovery violations. Courts generally require a showing that any violations materially prejudiced the defendant's ability to present a defense, and mere changes to witness lists, without more, may not meet that standard.

The Supreme Court's order was issued under case number 2025-5-C.A., with the underlying case designated as P1/18-1289A, reflecting the case's long procedural history through the Rhode Island court system.