« Update: Barrington teen put on home confinement | Today | Three accused of tax fraud »

June 20, 2008

Portsmouth motel murder plotter's conviction upheld

PROVIDENCE -- The state Supreme Court today upheld the murder conviction of Tajendra Patel, who got two consecutive life sentences after a jury found him guilty of hiring a man to kill the manager of a Portsmouth motel.

Authorities believe Tajendra Patel blamed the manager of Founder's Brook Motel and Suites, Sanjeev Patel -- his brother-in-law -- for breaking up his marriage.

The motel owner's son, Jay Patel testified at trial that he saw his father gunned down, that his father pleaded with the man, “Please, don’t do that, sir. Please don’t do that.” He was the only witness who saw the murder.

Sanjeev Patel’s wife, Prena, testified she could hear her husband pleading with the customer and when she entered the office after hearing the shots, she saw her husband covered with blood.

Patel's appeal to the state's highest court argued the judge erred when she admitted an in-court identification of defendant "because the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and because the identification lacked independent reliability," the court's opinion says. The appeal also argued that the judge also erred in admitting a 911 call that was "irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial."

Among its conclusions, the Supreme Court found "no clear error" in allowing the 911 call recording to be part of the trial.

-- projo.com staff writer Michael P. McKinney, with Journal archival reports

The man who was hired, Roger Graham, an immigrant from Barbados who lived illegally in New York City, was convicted of shooting and killing Sanjeev Patel at the motel on New Year's Day 2002. Tajendra Patel was convicted in a separate trial in 2003 of first-degree murder and conspiring with Graham.

Tajendra Patel has the possibility of parole. The Journal reported that a prosecutor said Superior Court Judge Melanie Wilk Thunberg was barred from considering life without parole in sentencing because of different evidence in the case that didn't meet the legal standard for such a ruling.

Posted by Mike McKinney  at 12:03 PM | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

ADVERTISING



ProJo 7 to 7
May « Jun 2008 »
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Archived headlines

Archived
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006