Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Robert Payette was convicted of first-degree murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. Payette appealed, contending that the trial justice erred (1) by instructing the jury that malice may be inferred where there is a disparity in the size or strength between the victim and the defendant; and (2) by denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the instruction at issue was a correct statement of law and was not improper; and (2) the trial justice properly denied Payette's motion for a new trial, as there was nothing in the record that would indicate that the justice overlooked or misconceived any material evidence or otherwise clearly erred. View "State v. Payette" on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Wray was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree robbery after robbing two women at gunpoint. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in (1) denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, as the eyewitness identifications that led to his conviction were unreliable and not substantial enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the robberies in question; and (2) allowing another witness to vouch for the credibility of the two witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, as the justice sufficiently articulated his rationale for denying Defendant's motion and did not overlook or misconceive any material evidence; and (2) allowing certain testimony into evidence, as the testimony did not constitute impermissible bolstering. View "State v. Wray" on Justia Law

After failing two field sobriety tests, Respondent Lewis Quattrucci was arrested for DUI and later charged with refusing to submit to a chemical test. The charge was subsequently dismissed by a traffic tribunal magistrate on the ground that Respondent had not been afforded a confidential telephone call, as required by R.I. Gen. Laws 12-7-20. The traffic tribunal upheld the magistrate's order dismissing the refusal charge, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the district court and vacated the dismissal of the refusal charge, holding (1) Respondent was entitled to the use of a telephone to call an attorney under section 12-7-20; but (2) because there was no evidence that Respondent made or wished to make a telephone call for the purpose of securing an attorney, nor any showing that Respondent suffered substantial and extreme prejudice because he did not receive a private telephone call, the magistrate erred in ruling that Respondent's rights were violated under section 12-7-20. View "State v. Quattrucci" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant Jose Vieira guilty on five counts of second-degree child molestation. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the trial justice did not err when she denied Defendant's motion to pass the case because of the prosecutor's remarks during final argument, as the jury received an appropriate curative instruction and the remarks did not inflame the passions of the jurors to the point they were unable to pass impartially upon the issues in this case; and (2) any objection based on hearsay regarding testimony of the complainant's mother about statements the complainant made to her was waived. View "State v. Vieira" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Kimberly St. Michel was convicted for embezzlement of funds in excess of $100 and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the trial justice did not err when he (1) prevented defense counsel from eliciting Defendant's out-of-court statement that "she didn't do any of this" through the testimony of a witness after finding that the statement was hearsay; and (2) denied Defendant's motion for a new trial, as the trial justice performed the proper analysis and committed neither clear error nor overlooked or misconceived evidence in making his ruling. View "State v. St. Michel" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Kenneth Rice was convicted of first-degree child molestation sexual assault, second-degree child molestation sexual assault, and solicitation with the intent to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Rice subsequently filed a pro se application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The superior court determined that certain actions on the part of Rice's trial counsel did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance but instead constituted tactical decisions made during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court hearing justice did not err in his denial of Rice's postconviction-relief application, as the tactical decisions Rice challenged were reasonably competent and did not rise to a level of constitutionally inadequate performance by trial counsel. View "Rice v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant David Dubois was convicted of five counts of second-degree child molestation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) properly weighed the potential impact of potentially inflammatory statements from witnesses and did not exceed the bounds of his discretion in denying Defendant's motions for a mistrial; (2) did not abuse his discretion in limiting defense counsel's direct examination of two witnesses as the disallowed evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible; and (3) erred in listing lewd disposition as one of the grounds for which the jury could consider testimony concerning uncharged incidents of sexual assault, but did not err in instructing the jury that the testimony was admissible for the limited purpose of demonstrating Defendant's sexual intent. View "State v. Dubois" on Justia Law

Defendant John Lomba was charged with three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of simple assault. After a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of the three felony counts but convicted of simple assault. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of simple assault where there were ample facts from which a reasonable juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant acted with malice or wantonness; and (2) did not improperly exclude evidence relating to Defendant's claim of self-defense or unfairly limit his cross-examination of both complaining witnesses. View "State v. Lomba" on Justia Law

Defendant Heriberto Rosario was convicted of two counts of first-degree child molestation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in failing to grant his motion for a new trial because the evidence was too contradictory and incredible to sufficiently support the verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion for a new trial because the record showed that the justice did not overlook or misconceive any material and relevant evidence, nor was he clearly mistaken in choosing which testimony to accept and reject. View "State v. Rosario" on Justia Law

George Bouffard pled nolo contendere to breaking and entering associated for an incident occurring in 2000 and was adjudged a violator of his suspended and probationary sentences associated with two earlier cases, in 1991 and 1997. After Bouffard was released from incarceration, he faced another breaking-and-entering charge in 2006. The superior court determined that Bouffard violated his probation imposed in the 1997 and the 2000 case. Meanwhile, the State dismissed the underlying breaking-and-entering charge set forth in the 2006 case. Two days later, Bouffard filed a motion to correct what he alleged to be an illegal sentence imposed in the 1997 case. After a hearing, the hearing justice (1) deemed the challenged sentence as illegal or illegally imposed; but (2) restructured Bouffard's sentencing package to maintain the sentence levied for the 2006 violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice appropriately modified the original sentence despite any dispute about its illegality or illegal imposition; and (2) Bouffard's modified sentence fit "both crime and criminal" as required by State v. Goncalves at the time of re-bundling given the state's ultimate dismissal of the underlying breaking-and-entering charge in the 2006 case. View "State v. Bouffard" on Justia Law