Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree robbery in connection with two armed robberies. Defendant filed several motions to suppress evidence obtained by police detectives following his arrest. A hearing justice granted Defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence under the exclusionary rule to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the evidence was gathered after an “illegal” extra-jurisdictional arrest. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court, holding (1) the detectives’ actions in arresting Defendant outside their jurisdiction were in excess of their authority; but (2) the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment did not mandate the suppression of the evidence obtained in this case. View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant filed a pro se application for postconviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Appellant also filed a motion to appoint counsel. Counsel was appointed to investigate Appellant’s postconviction-relief claims in light of the Court’s holding in Shatney v. State. Counsel subsequently filed a Shatney report and requested that the court permit her to withdraw her appearance on Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court allowed counsel to withdraw from the case, and Appellant proceeded pro se on his postconviction relief claims. Following a hearing, the trial justice denied and dismissed Appellant’s application for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the trial justice did not follow the appropriate procedure mandated by Shatney by not allowing Appellant an opportunity to be heard on the merits of his application before allowing the appointed attorney to withdraw. Remanded with directions to appoint counsel to Appellant in accordance with section R.I. Gen. Laws 10-9.1-5 for investigation and, if appropriate, litigation of Appellant’s allegations. View "Ramirez v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, school committees of Woonsocket and Pawtucket and unnamed students, parents, and the superintendents from both districts, brought suit against the legislative and executive branches of Rhode Island’s state government challenging the state’s school funding formula. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Education Clause as well as violations of their substantive due process and equal protection rights because the formula failed to allocate adequate resources to less affluent communities. The superior court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) prior case law as well as the separation of powers doctrine warranted dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Education Clause claim; and (2) Plaintiffs’ complaint was insufficient to establish potential substantive due process claims. View "Woonsocket Sch. Comm. v. Chafee " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other crimes arising out of a shooting outside of a nightclub. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the trial justice did not err when he denied a motion to suppress out-of-court and in-court identifications, as the photographic array displayed to the witness was not unnecessarily suggestive; and (2) the trial justice did not err when he permitted the state to use peremptory challenges to African-American prospective jurors, as the challenges did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. View "State v. Gallop" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with ten offenses in a single indictment. After five of the counts were dismissed, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the five remaining counts of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and reckless driving, among other crimes. The trial justice sentenced Defendant to life for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err when he did not grant Defendant’s motion to sever the counts relating to the murder/robbery from the counts relating to the police chase; (2) did not err by not granting Defendant’s motion to sever certain offenses committed on one date from offenses committed on another date; (3) did not violate Defendant’s right to a fair trial when he refused to allow a police artist’s sketch into evidence; (4) did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion to exclude three autopsy photographs from evidence; and (5) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2009, three men attacked and robbed Complainant. Several days later, Complainant saw one of his attackers loitering on the street. After a foot chase, Complainant caught the attacker - Michael Long - and held him until the police arrived. Upon his arrest, Long implicated Defendant in the crime. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) Defendant waived his double jeopardy challenge; (2) the trial justice did not abuse her discretion by admitting Long’s prior police statement as a prior inconsistent statement, and the use of Long’s prior police statements as prior inconsistent statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause; (3) any use of leading questions posed to Long by the prosecutor was harmless; (4) the trial justice did not err by admitting Long’s statements to his former finacee in the presence of Defendant as adoptive admissions; and (5) the trial justice did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Matthews" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree child molestation and five counts of second-degree child molestation. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial justice erred in admitting evidence that Defendant also allegedly molested the complainant's sister. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant's other sexual misconduct; (2) the trial justice did not clearly err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (3) the trial justice correctly denied Defendant's request for new counsel prior to sentencing. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence, and entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a larceny therein. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that newly discovered evidence revealed a cooperation agreement between the police and a prominent state's witness in Defendant's murder trial and that the prosecution violated Defendant's due process rights by failing to disclose the full extent of the agreement. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that the alleged newly discovered evidence failed the first prong of the test to be applied for motions based on newly discovered evidence; and (2) Defendant's due process rights were not violated because the state did not fail to disclose information regarding the cooperation agreement. View "State v. Drew" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree child molestation and two counts of first-degree child abuse on a child under the age of five. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent life sentences on the child molestation counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, as that the trial justice conducted the appropriate analysis and reached the same result as the jury after considering the evidence and independently assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. View "State v. Baptista" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses, including murder, robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other firearm-related counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err when she denied Defendant's motion for new trial and did not misconceive material evidence relating to a critical trial issue; (2) did not give confusing or unwarranted instructions to the jury; (3) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; (4) did not commit reversible error by instructing the jury that Defendant was in custody; and (5) did not permit the excessive use of leading questions during the direct examination of the State's witnesses. Lastly, Defendant was not entitled to a new trial because certain bench conferences were not placed on the record. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law