Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of felony assault and battery for his brutal attack of a sixteen-year-old girl. Two years after the attack, law enforcement performed a buccal swab on Defendant, which matched the profile developed from a sample taken from the victim’s underwear. As a result, Defendant was indicted on seven felony counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence and Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on alleged errors occurring at trial; and (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of a forensic evidence analyst who testified at trial. View "State v. Nickerson" 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 assault with a dangerous weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, and using a firearm while committing a crime of violence. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial justice erred by accepting certain testimony. The trial justice denied Defendant's motion. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial justice overlooked and misconceived material evidence when denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice articulated adequate grounds for denying Defendant's motion and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence when making his decision.View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

In 1990, Defendant pled nolo contendere to twenty-six offenses, including arson and a number of robberies. Defendant was sentenced to forty years' incarceration with twenty-eight years suspended, with probation, on the one arson and eight robbery charges. In 2011, a probation violation hearing was held based upon allegations of sexual assault. Thirteen witnesses testified during the hearing regarding the allegations. The superior court subsequently found Defendant to be in violation of the terms of his probation and sentenced him to serve the previously imposed suspended sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice's credibility findings were not arbitrary or capricious.View "State v. Raso" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several crimes in connection with a drive-by shooting. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle without a license and attempting to elude a police officer. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial with respect to both convictions. The trial justice granted the motion on the charge of attempting to elude a police officer but denied the motion with respect to the firearm charge. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment of conviction, holding that the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial with respect to the charge of carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle without a license. View "State v. Nabe" on Justia Law