Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and discharging a weapon while committing a crime of violence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial justice abused his discretion in denying his motions to pass and in overruling his objections to photographic evidence and erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motions to pass and motions for mistrial; (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the photograph at issue; and (3) Defendant’s disagreement with the trial justice’s credibility determination was an insufficient basis for reversal. View "State v. Alexis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and discharging a weapon while committing a crime of violence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial justice abused his discretion in denying his motions to pass and in overruling his objections to photographic evidence and erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motions to pass and motions for mistrial; (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the photograph at issue; and (3) Defendant’s disagreement with the trial justice’s credibility determination was an insufficient basis for reversal. View "State v. Alexis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree sexual assault.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial justice should have granted his motion for a mistrial due to what he termed the prosecutor’s comment on his failure to testify. The Supreme Court held (1) the trial justice correctly found that the prosecutor’s statement, taken in context, did not improperly comment on Defendant’s failure to testify and thus did not violate Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights; (2) the trial justice did not commit reversible error in admitting Defendant’s “mug shot” into evidence; and (3) the trial justice did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for new trial. View "State v. Marizan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court denying Petitioner’s application for postconviction relief, in which he alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when his parole was revoked and he was denied the possibility of parole in the future.After Petitioner was granted parole, he was arrested in Pennsylvania and convicted of one count of aggravated assault. In 1994, while Petitioner was serving his sentence in Pennsylvania, the Rhode Island Parole Board voted to revoke Petitioner’s parole and indicated that he would no longer be eligible for parole. Upon completion of his prison term in Pennsylvania, Petitioner, in 2014, appeared again before the Parole Board. The Parole Board affirmed the revocation of Petitioner’s parole and stated that Petitioner would forever remain ineligible for parole consideration. The Supreme Court held that it was error for the Parole Board to have denied Petitioner counsel at the 1994 hearing and the 2014 hearing and remanded the case with instructions that the superior court remand this case to the Parole Board to conduct a new parole revocation hearing. View "Jefferson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault, for which Defendant received two concurrent forty-year sentences.On appeal, the Court held that the trial justice did not err by (1) refusing to the testimony of Natalie Kissoon, M.D. in its entirety for lack of foundation; (2) refusing to grant Defendant’s motion to pass the case after Dr. Kissoon testified that the victim’s disclosures were consistent with sexual abuse; and (3) denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. View "State v. Rathbun" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court denying Defendant’s application for postconviction relief in which Defendant argued that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer was not licensed to practice law in Rhode Island.Defendant pled nolo contendere to two criminal offenses and admitted to violating his probationary sentence. In his postconviction relief application, Defendant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel, who was not licensed to practice law in Rhode Island, was engaging in unlawful conduct. Defendant further argued that his defense counsel’s associate, who was licensed in Rhode Island and who appeared in court with Defendant, was a “straw man” and thus complicit in the scheme to practice law without a license. The superior court denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice properly found that defense counsel’s associate, not defense counsel, represented Defendant with respect to his pleas; and (2) Defendant’s argument that defense counsel and the associate had a conflict of interest in representing Defendant lacked merit. View "Millette v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy after a jury trial.On appeal, Defendant requested a new trial on the grounds that the trial justice erred in admitting into evidence identification testimony and a photograph identification. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the contested identification testimony because the testimony was not impermissible hearsay; and (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting a single photograph of Defendant into evidence because the use of a single photograph was not unduly suggestive and did not implicate Defendant’s right to due process. View "State v. Alves" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault and one count of second-degree child molestation sexual assault, holding that the trial justice did not err in granting the State’s motion in limine and in admitting the testimony of three witnesses about alleged incidents of Defendant’s prior sexual misconduct under R.I. R. Evid. 404(b).On appeal, Defendant argued that the alleged prior sexual misconduct was too remote and dissimilar to the charged acts to be admissible. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the challenged testimony satisfied the “nonremote” and “similar” requirements of Rule 404(b) jurisprudence; (2) the evidence was relevant to the crime charged and reasonably necessary; (3) the risk of prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the allegations of prior sexual misconduct; and (4) there was no error in the trial justice’s analysis under Rule 29(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

Contrary to the conclusions of the magistrate and the hearing justice, Defendant did not have a lifetime duty to register, but rather, his duty to register expired ten years from the expiration of his sentence for the offense of second-degree child molestation sexual assault, in accordance with R. I. Gen. Stat. 11-37.1-18 and 11.37.1-4(a). Further, Defendant’s three prior failure-to-notify convictions did not run afoul of the ex post facto clause.Defendant filed a motion to dismiss a 2012 charge for failing to notify law enforcement of a change in residence. The magistrate denied the motion, determining that Defendant had a lifetime duty to register. Defendant then filed an application for postconviction relief from his three prior failure-to-notify convictions in 2007, 2009, and 2010. A justice of the superior court denied relief, concluding that Defendant had a lifetime duty to register and that his three failure-no-notify convictions did not violate the ex post facto clause. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the part of the magistrate’s decision denying the motion to dismiss but reversed the magistrate’s ruling that Defendant had a lifetime duty to register as a sex offender; and (2) affirmed the judgment denying postconviction relief but reversed the hearing justice’s ruling that Defendant’s obligation to register was for the remainder of his life. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of one count of first-degree child molestation sexual assault and one count of the sale or distribution of photographs of a minor suggesting that the minor engaged in, or is about to engage in, a sexual act. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the complaining witness regarding her allegations against her biological father. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in precluding the admission of this evidence. View "State v. Danis" on Justia Law