Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of felony domestic assault, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and one count of simple domestic assault after previously having been convicted twice of domestic assault. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective because he stipulated to the fact that Defendant had two prior convictions for domestic violence in the presence of the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient, and even if Defendant were able to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective, Defendant’s right to a fair trial was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s conduct. View "Snell v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured when he fell down the stairs in his residence. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Defendants, his landlords, alleging that Defendants failed to maintain the premises in a clean and safe condition. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Defendants. The superior court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred by denying his motion to pass the case due to jury prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not commit reversible error by rejecting Plaintiff’s motion to pass the case due to juror misconduct. View "Roma v. Moreira" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of first degree sexual assault and one count of assault with the intent to commit a sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in permitting the State to impeach him with a prior conviction for assault and denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in concluding that Defendant’s assault conviction was admissible to impeach Defendant’s credibility; and (2) the trial justice was neither clearly wrong nor misconceived or overlooked material evidence in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Swiridowsky" on Justia Law

Defendant was adjudicated by a justice of the superior court to be in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation for his participation in a home invasion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding him to be a probation violator. The Supreme Court entered an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The Court then determined that cause had not been shown and affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding that Defendant violated the terms of his probation. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

A criminal complaint was filed against Defendant charging him with burglary. After a combined bail and violation hearing, a hearing justice found that Defendant failed to be of good behavior and that Defendant violated the terms of his violation. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that evidence obtained from the search of a vehicle should have been suppressed because it was obtained from an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant lacked standing to contest the legality of the search of the vehicle; (2) even assuming the police illegally obtained the evidence, the exclusionary rule did not apply at Defendant’s probation revocation hearing; and (3) the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding that Defendant violated his probation. View "State v. Ditren" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of more than five kilograms of marijuana. Defendant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived her argument that the trial justice did not err in his supplemental jury instruction given in response to a question posed by the jury; (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on both the weight of the evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence; and (3) Defendant’s argument that her twenty-year sentence violated R.I. Const. art. I, 8 was not properly before the Court. View "State v. Mendez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault. The trial justice denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as sufficient evidence supported the conviction; (2) did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; and (3) did not err in allowing the complaining witness’s statements made to the police officer at the scene into evidence at trial under the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay rule. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

In 2006, Defendant was found guilty of breaking and entering, assault with a dangerous weapon, and simple assault. In 2012, while he was incarcerated, Defendant was involved in an altercation with a correctional officer. As a result, the state initiated probation-violation proceedings seeking to revoke the suspended portion of Defendant’s sentence for felony assault. The hearing justice ultimately found that Defendant was the aggressor in this case and that he had violated in the terms of his probation. The judge then ordered Defendant to serve the entirety of his thirteen-year suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication of probation violation, holding that the hearing justice acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously by finding a violation on the basis of the evidence presented by the state. View "State v. Prout" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of four criminal counts related to a murder committed during the course of an attempted robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment of conviction and its denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding (1) in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial, the trial justice did not improperly credit the testimony of three key witnesses; and (2) the trial justice did not err in allowing one witness to testify as to Defendant’s behavior during their romantic relationship because the testimony was relevant and only marginally prejudicial. View "State v. Virola" on Justia Law

After a bench trial in district court, Defendant was convicted of one count of simple domestic assault and one count of resisting arrest. Defendant appealed these convictions to the superior court. Immediately before the start of trial, Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the complaint of resisting arrest. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of simple domestic assault. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial and sentenced him to one year’s probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err when he allowed into evidence the facts regarding the charge of resisting arrest. View "State v. Peltier" on Justia Law