Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery and sentenced to a total of thirty years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to sever the count charging a codefendant with carrying a handgun without a license, as Defendant did not show he suffered prejudice from the joinder of the charge to such a degree that he was denied a fair trial; and (2) the remainder of Defendant’s allegations of trial error were not preserved for appellate review.View "State v. Gadson" on Justia Law

In 1992, Appellant was incarcerated while awaiting the disposition of an allegation of first-degree child molestation. In 1994, Appellant pled nolo contendere to one count of first-degree child molestation. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years incarceration with twelve years suspended and twelve years probation. In 1997, Appellant was released from the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). Appellant completed his period of parole in 1999. In 2010, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and applied for postconviction relief, arguing that his probationary period should have commenced and ended fifteen months earlier because his credit for time served caused him to be released from prison that much sooner. The superior court denied relief, concluding that Appellant’s sentence began in 1994 and ran until 2014. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not miscalculate the length of Appellant’s sentence.View "Rose v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of second-degree sexual assault. A jury trial commenced, but the trial justice granted Defendant’s motion for a mistrial due to a discovery violation. Thereafter, Defendant moved to dismiss the sexual-assault charge on double jeopardy grounds because of prosecutorial goading. The trial justice denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court upheld the trial justice’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge, holding that sufficient evidence in the record supported the trial justice’s finding that the objective facts did not give rise to an inference of intentional goading.View " State v. Rolle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder, and one count each of conspiracy and arson. The trial justice sentenced Defendant to three consecutive life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission of evidence of a robbery Defendant committed the day before the murders, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his objections to the content of the limiting instructions regarding the use of the robbery evidence; and (3) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when he denied Defendant’s motion to pass the case.View "State v. Clements" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six criminal counts relating to a shooting. Defendant appealed, arguing that, in denying his motion for a new trial, the trial justice overlooked and misconceived material evidence and failed to draw appropriate inferences from the evidence. Specifically, Defendant argued that the testimony of two key witnesses at trial was not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that nothing in the record showed the justice was either clearly wrong or that the justice overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence in his denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial.View "State v. Silva" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault. Defendant appealed, contending, among other things, that the trial justice erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements made to police during a post-arrest interrogation. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial justice’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial and discerned no error arising from the justice’s evidentiary rulings; but (2) remanded the case to the superior court with directions to make additional findings of fact and credibility determinations concerning the voluntariness of Defendant’s confessions, as the trial justice failed to make the findings of fact and credibility determinations essential to support his ultimate finding of voluntariness. View "State v. Bojang" on Justia Law

In 1994, Defendant was charged with felony assault with a dangerous weapon (Count One) and willful or malicious injury to property (Count Two). Count One was dismissed in consideration of Defendant pleading nolo contendere to Count Two. In 2004, Defendant filed a motion to seal with respect to both counts. A justice of the superior court denied the motion. Defendant appealed the hearing justice’s denial of her motion with respect to Count One. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not err when she denied Defendant’s motion to seal Count One pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 12-1-12.1(a) because Defendant had not been exonerated of all counts in the criminal case.View "State v. Diamante" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree child molestation and three counts of second-degree child molestation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial justice abused her discretion in refusing to exclude all evidence of uncharged acts of molestation and that the trial justice erred in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and Defendant's motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s first argument was not preserved for appeal; and (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. View "State v. Buchanan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred when she allowed the State to elicit testimony from the complaining witness, which Defendant alleged violated Sup. Ct. R. Crim. P. 16 because the testimony was contrary to the State’s supplemental discovery responses. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court because the content of and the inconsistency among the complaining witness’s statements was disclosed to Defendant and was a proper subject for cross-examination. View "State v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Defendant and the complaining witness (Complainant) lived together while Defendant maintained his own apartment. Due to certain incidents between Defendant and Complainant, Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of simple domestic assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for acquittal and in denying his motion for a new trial because the evidence presented at trial did not establish that Defendant and Complainant were in a domestic relationship, as required under R.I. Gen. Laws 12-29-2. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the trial justice properly found Defendant and Complainant were in a domestic relationship.View "State v. Fleck" on Justia Law