Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case heard by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Somayina Odiah, the defendant, was appealing his conviction for one count of indecent solicitation of a child. The defendant had been communicating online with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old transitioning from male to female named “Alice.” However, “Alice” was a fictitious character created by the Rhode Island State Police for an undercover operation. The defendant was arrested after arranging to meet “Alice” in person. The defendant's argument on appeal focused on the claim that the state had not proven that “Alice” was “over the age of fourteen,” a necessary element for the charged offense.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the conviction. It held that even if “Alice” had turned fourteen on the day of the charged offense, under Rhode Island law, a person reaches their next year in age at the first moment of the day prior to the anniversary date of their birth. Therefore, “Alice” would have been considered to be exactly fourteen years old on the day before the charged offense. The court concluded that the defendant was planning to meet a fourteen-year-old child, with whom he had communicated about sexual activity, and that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the charge on the basis of the state not proving "Alice" was "over the age of fourteen." Thus, the defendant's judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Odiah" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the superior court granting Defendants' motions to suppress evidence of approximately ninety-four pounds of marijuana seized from one defendant's vehicle during a traffic stop, holding that the trial justice erred in granting Defendants' motions to suppress.Junjie Li was operating a vehicle and Zhong Kuang was in the passenger seat when a law enforcement officer initiated a traffic stop. While conversing with Li, the officer noticed Li began to exhibit nervous behavior and detected an order of marijuana coming from inside Kuang's vehicle. After a dog sniff, officers discovered marijuana. Li and Kuang moved, individually to suppress the marijuana. The trial justice granted the motions to suppress, holding that the extension of the traffic stop beyond its original scope was unreasonable because the officer did not have independent reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's orders, holding that the trial justice erred in concluding that the officer did not possess reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop based on the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Li" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of operating a vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of others, death resulting, and operating a vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of others, personal injury resulting, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial justice properly exercised her judgment, did not overlook or misconceive the testimony in evidence, and provided adequate reasons supporting her denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence; and (2) Defendant's argument that the trial justice erred by admitting evidence from an electronic data recovery system obtained from one of a tow truck involved in the underlying automobile accident was waived. View "State v. Savard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the superior court granting motions to suppress filed by Defendants Jerome Joseph and Voguel Figaro, holding that the hearing justice did not err in granting Defendants' suppression motions.Figaro moved to suppress physical evidence seized as the result of a motor vehicle stop, arguing that the officer unconstitutionally prolonged the stop to perform a dog sniff. Joseph also filed a motion to suppress and joined the memorandum supporting Figaro's suppression motion. The hearing justice granted the motions to suppress, holding that reasonable suspicion did not support the prolonged traffic stop of Figaro's vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice properly found that the state police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Defendants. View "State v. Joseph" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of three counts of first-degree sexual assault, following a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme eCourt held that the trial justice (1) did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to present a defense by excluding the proposed expert testimony of Dr. Patricia R. Recupero as not relevant under Rule 401 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence; (2) did not err in instructing the jury that there was no need for certain testimony to be corroborated in order to support a guilty verdict; and (3) did not abuse his discretion in limiting the redirect examination of Defendant about his preparation for trial. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court denying Defendant's motion for entry of a judgment of acquittal and convicting him on thirteen counts stemming from his alleged misuse of his position as detective commander in the Middletown Police Department, holding that Defendant's argument on appeal was waived.Defendant was convicted of several counts for assisting an individual to attain a house choice voucher from the Newport Housing Authority. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the basis of his contention that "[a]ny rules governing the user's behavior within the system are irrelevant and cannot contribute to the sufficiency of the state's case in a [Sup. Ct. R. Crim. P. 29] motion...." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's argument was waived because it was not the same argument he made below. View "State v. Gamache" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting and committing Defendant on one count of first-degree sexual assault after a jury trial, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Defendant was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to thirty-eight years at the Adult Correctional Institutions. On appeal, Defendant challenged the ruling of the trial justice permitting the State to introduce into evidence testimony given by a nurse concerning what the complaining witness told her about the alleged sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's arguments on appeal were properly before the Court; (2) the was no error in the discretionary decision of the trial justice to admit the nurse's testimony; and (3) certain portions of admitted statements were erroneously admitted, but the evidence was clearly harmless cumulative evidence. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court dismissing Plaintiffs' claims in favor of Defendants in accordance with Sup. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that the trial court did not err in ruling that R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-51 (the act), as amended, created a class of criminal actors beyond the scope of actual perpetrators as set forth in the act.Plaintiffs filed separate actions alleging that they were sexually molested as minors by priests at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants' actions rose to the level of criminal aiding and abetting, thus constituting improper conduct. The trial justice granted Defendants' motions to dismiss all claims in all cases, holding that because Defendants were non-perpetrators, the actions were time-barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendants could not be found culpable as aiders or abettors; (2) even if Defendants' actions constituted a violation of a criminal statute, they were non-penetrators and the claims were time-barred; and (3) there was no other error. View "Houllahan v. Gelineau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of two counts of second-degree sexual assault, holding that the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motion to pass the case or his motion for a new trial.Defendant was convicted after a trial. The trial justice denied Defendant's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to eight years of imprisonment for each count, with one year to serve and the remaining time suspended. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial justice abused his discretion in denying Defendant's motion to pass the case due to the prosecutor's allegedly improper comments during closing arguments. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion to pass the case; and (2) the trial justice did not erroneously admit evidence unduly prejudicial to Defendant, and therefore, Defendant was not entitled to receive a new trial. View "State v. Leonard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the superior court convicting Defendant following a jury trial for larceny of an automobile and adjudicating him a probation violator, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence collected as a result of a warrantless search of his real-time cell-site location information (CSLI). The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) the acquisition of real-time CSLI qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment for which a warrant is required; (2) any error in the trial justice's determination that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applied to the facts of this case was harmless; (3) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion to exclude certain testimony, and any error in allowing other testimony to be admitted at trial was harmless; and (4) Defendant waived his last argument for appeal. View "State v. Sinapi" on Justia Law