Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the Casino Acts, two pieces of legislation providing for the establishment of state-authorized table games at gambling facilities at which Plaintiff, the Narragansett Indian Tribe, received a percentage of income from authorized video lottery terminal (VLT) machines. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaration that that the Casino Acts were unconstitutional. The superior court concluded that Plaintiff had standing but that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving that the Casino Acts violated the Constitution. Plaintiff appealed, and the State cross-appealed as to the issue of standing. The Supreme Court declined to consolidate the two appeals, and therefore, only the State’s appeal on the issue of standing was before the Court. The Court then affirmed the judgment of the superior court finding that the Tribe was entitled to bring its claims challenging the Casino Act, holding that the reasonable likelihood that the Tribe would suffer a reduction in income from the removal of VLT machines due to the establishment of the table games was sufficient to support a finding that the Tribe had suffered an injury in fact. View "Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of simple assault. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of two witnesses during her closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion by allowing the state to impeach Defendant’s credibility with his fourteen prior criminal convictions; and (2) although a portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument was akin to vouching, the trial justice did not err by refusing to pass the case. View "State v. Whitfield" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment of conviction and its denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to pass the case after the prosecutor engaged in an improper line of questioning to a witness, as any prejudice which may have resulted was cured by the trial justice’s instruction to the jury; and (2) the trial justice did not misconceive or overlook material testimony and did not otherwise commit clear error in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Hie" on Justia Law

In 1990, Applicant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual assault. In 2001, Applicant filed a pro se application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and trial error. In 2005, the hearing justice denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice properly did not commit clear error or misconceive material evidence in rendering his decision, as (1) Applicant’s claims relating to alleged errors committed by the trial justice were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) Applicant failed to show to his trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. View "Lamoureux v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled nolo contendere to three counts of second-degree child molestation. Before he was sentenced, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The trial justice denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to three concurrent sentences of fifteen years at the Adult Correctional Institutions. Eighteen months after sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, arguing that his plea to the criminal charges should be set aside because his attorney did not inform him that the attorney was undergoing personal struggles during his representation of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's appeal was not properly before the court; and (2) even if Defendant's argument was properly made, the argument was without merit.View "State v. Castriotta" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree child molestation. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial justice denied the application, concluding that Appellant failed to establish that his counsel’s performance was deficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding that trial counsel performed at a high level and in thus denying Appellant’s application for postconviction relief. View "Merida v. State" on Justia Law

In 1998, Applicant was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Applicant later filed an application for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. In connection with his application, Applicant filed a subpoena duces tecum seeking discovery of the mental health records of Appellant, who testified as an eyewitness in Applicant's murder trial. Appellant filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded with directions to make further factual findings, holding that the trial justice erred in ordering the release of Appellant's health care records without first conducting the necessary statutory analysis.View "DePina v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a crime of violence. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal because the the State produced sufficient evidence at trial from which a jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant possessed the handgun; and (2) the trial justice did not violate Defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel by restricting defense counsel’s closing argument. View "State v. Ferrer" on Justia Law

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