Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Paul Grieder assaulted plaintiff Michael Trainor and pled nolo contendere to one count of simple assault and battery and one count of felony assault. Plaintiff sued defendant in superior court, seeking damages for his injuries. Judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor in the amount of $1.5 million, but defendant refused to render payment in full to plaintiff. In the current case, plaintiff filed suit against defendant in superior court, attempting to recover his due. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to the fact that there had been no return of the execution on the judgment. The hearing justice ruled that since defendant had not raised the jurisdictional issue before the court on prior occasions, he had waived it, and therefore, the defendant's motion was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) defendant waived the requirement that there be a return of the execution on the judgment. View "Trainor v. Grieder" on Justia Law

After a violation report was filed against defendant Ramondo Howard alleging defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, defendant filed a pro se motion indicating that he wished to release his attorney and wanted new counsel to be appointed, confirming on the record he had filed a complaint against his attorney with the court's disciplinary board. The hearing justice excused defendant's attorney. Defendant then filed motions to recuse and change venues, both of which the hearing justice denied. At the violation hearing, the hearing justice found defendant to be a violator of the terms and conditions of his probation. Before the hearing began, however, the hearing justice expressed his belief that defendant needed to be "warehoused" and was "beyond rehabilitation." Defendant appealed, arguing the hearing justice erred by failing to recuse himself from the case because the justice lacked the objectivity and impartiality to fairly hear and render judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that because the hearing justice chose to express his opinions prior to the commencement of the violation hearing, the justice displayed a clear inability to render fair judgment and erred by declining to recuse under the circumstances. Remanded. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendants Norman Cipriano, Jr. and Jamie Bryant were convicted of receiving stolen goods with a value in excess of $500 and for conspiring to commit larceny. On appeal, defendants argued that the trial justice erred in (1) denying their motions for acquittal because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the elements of each crime, and (2) refusing to instruct the jury about impermissible pyramiding of inferences and in the judge's charge concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cipriano additionally argued that the trial justice erred in (1) refusing to pass the case after a witness testified to seeing Cipriano on a prison bus, leaving the jury to infer that Cipriano had a general criminal disposition; and (2) in denying Cipriano's motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for denying the motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) the requested jury instructions were unnecessary and the trial justice adequately instructed the jury concerning reasonable doubt; (3) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion by refusing to pass the case or err by not giving a curative instruction; and (4) the trial justice did not err in declining to grant a new trial. View "State v. Cipriano" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael English pled nolo contendere to four counts of first-degree child molestation, one count of second-degree molestation, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, arising out of his relationship with victim, M.B. More than a decade later, the state filed a probation-violation notice, alleging that defendant had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to adhere to the terms of the no-contact order after M.B. complained that defendant had come into contact with her. The hearing justice concluded that defendant violated the terms of his probation, and the superior court adjudicated defendant a violator of probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that his contact with M.B. was merely coincidental and therefore insufficient to constitute a violation of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice's determination that the state's evidence supported an adjudication of probation violation was neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "State v. English" on Justia Law

A police surveillance operation at a street intersection led to the conviction of defendant, Geornando Vargas, for one count of delivery of a controlled substance. On appeal, defendant argued (1) that the trial justice erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence presented by the state amounted to an improper pyramiding of inferences and therefore was legally insufficient to support defendant's conviction, and (2) the trial justice erred by denying his motion for a new trial because the justice misconceived the testimony of one of the state's witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) that rather than deducing guilt from an ambiguous circumstantial fact, the state established a pattern of corroborating circumstances sufficient to justify a reasonable juror in finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore affirmed the trial justice's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal; and (2) the trial justice did not misconceive the evidence when ruling on the defendant's motion for a new trial, and therefore, the trial justice did not err in denying the motion. View "State v. Vargas" on Justia Law

Defendant John Ferreira was convicted for one count of first-degree child molestation and three counts of second-degree child molestation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial. In an order to show cause, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the justice did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial because (1) the justice did not overlook or misconceive any material inconsistencies; (2) the justice appropriately reviewed the entire record and sufficiently outlined her reasons for denying defendant's motion; (3) the justice did not clearly err in her credibility determinations or overlook or misconceive relevant and material evidence; and (4) any error committed by the trial justice in referring to portions of matters not in evidence was harmless. View "State v. Ferreira" on Justia Law

Defendant Viroth Phannavong was convicted of three counts of child molestation against his former girlfriend's daughter. At trial, defendant sought to introduce a map of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, which depicted the defendant's former home. The trial justice sustained the state's objection to the map being admitted as a full exhibit, arguing that it could not be authenticated properly. The defendant also moved for a new trial because the verdict failed to do substantial justice between the parties, a motion the trial justice denied. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial justice erred (1) by refusing to admit into evidence a map of Woonsocket, and (2) by denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reason to disturb the trial justice's findings as (1) the map was neither properly authenticated nor was its reliability established, and (2) the trial justice clearly conducted a thorough review of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence to support the verdict. View "State v. Phannavong" on Justia Law

Defendant Nicholas Gianquitti was convicted of second-degree murder and using a firearm while committing a crime of violence. During trial, the trial justice found that there was nothing that would suggest that defendant intended to prevent entry into his home and that, therefore, there was no evidence of a breaking and entering crime in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws 11-8-8. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred (1) by refusing to instruct the jury in accordance with Section 11-8-8 and denying his subsequent motion for a new trial on the same basis; and (2) by excluding expert testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) that after reviewing the evidence, there was no reason to disturb the findings of the trial justice regarding defendant's Section 11-8-8 argument; and (2) because defendant failed to renew his objection on the issue of admissibility of expert testimony and did not preserve the issue for appellate review, the admissibility of expert opinion testimony was waived. View "State v. Gianquitti" on Justia Law

Defendant James Enos dated Mary for six months before they separated. After their separation they met at a restaurant where defendant began swearing at Mary. Defendant then hit Mary on the head with drinking glasses and kicked her. Defendant was convicted of domestic assault with a dangerous weapon. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) that the evidence presented by the state was legally insufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that defendant and Mary were in a domestic relationship; and (2) the trial justice erred when she refused to declare a mistrial after a police officer testified that after defendant was informed of his Miranda rights defendant remained silent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence, overall, indicated that defendant and Mary were in a substantive dating relationship and therefore the trial justice correctly denied defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal; and (2) the trial justice was not clearly wrong when she denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial and instead opted to instruct the jury to disregard the officer's unsolicited remark. View "State v. Enos" on Justia Law

In 2006, defendant Edgar Goulet killed his dog by shooting it with a sawed-off shotgun. One year later, the state, by way of criminal information, charged defendant with one count of malicious killing of an animal and one count of possession of a sawed-off shotgun. At trial, among other motions, defendant filed a motion to sever to the two counts of the information. The motion to sever was denied. After a jury trial defendant was convicted on both counts. The defendant appealed. The issues properly before the Supreme Court were (1) defendant's assertion that the trial justice erred when he denied defendant's motion to sever, and (2) the defendant's Fourth Amendment claims relating to the police officers' searches of the defendant's yard and home. The Court affirmed, concluding (1) the defendant did not make a sufficient showing that he would be prejudiced to the extent that he would not receive a fair trial if the two counts were not severed, and thus the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when he denied defendant's motion; and (2) the defendant's Fourth Amendment claims as to the propriety of the warrantless search were without merit. View "State v. Goulet" on Justia Law