Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that she possessed a prescriptive easement and an easement by implication over Defendant's property. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that she had an easement giving her the right to use a paved driveway on Defendant's property. The trial court justice found that Plaintiff had acknowledged Defendant's superior title, that she had not occupied the disputed property with hostility and under a claim of right, that she had used the disputed property openly but not notoriously, and that she did not establish an easement by implication. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment of the superior court with respect to Plaintiff's claim of an easement by implication; but (2) vacated the judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claim of a prescriptive easement, holding that the superior court erred in finding that Plaintiff (i) had not established that she used the disputed property in a hostile manner under a claim of right, and (ii) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her use of the disputed property was notorious in nature. Remanded. View "Caluori v. Dexter Credit Union" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses, including murder, robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other firearm-related counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err when she denied Defendant's motion for new trial and did not misconceive material evidence relating to a critical trial issue; (2) did not give confusing or unwarranted instructions to the jury; (3) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; (4) did not commit reversible error by instructing the jury that Defendant was in custody; and (5) did not permit the excessive use of leading questions during the direct examination of the State's witnesses. Lastly, Defendant was not entitled to a new trial because certain bench conferences were not placed on the record. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell on a public sidewalk that was uneven and filled with cracks. Plaintiff sued the owner of the property that abutted the sidewalk and the property's tenants (collectively, Defendants), alleging negligence. The trial justice granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact and had failed to demonstrate that Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care or a duty to warn. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care because (1) Plaintiff's injuries occurred on a public sidewalk that was not within Defendants' control or possession; and (2) a property owner who owes no duty of care to an individual also owes no duty to warn those individuals. View "Wyso v. Full Moon Tide, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1999, Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to first-degree robbery. While he was on parole from that sentence, Defendant was charged with and subsequently pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of second-degree child molestation. In 2006, Defendant filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging that the attorney who had represented him in the child molestation case had rendered ineffective assistance because he had erroneously advised Defendant. The trial justice denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in determining that Defendant had failed to demonstrate he had received the advice he claimed was constitutionally deficient; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice from the alleged erroneous advice. View "Perkins v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of nine felony counts, including second-degree murder and related firearms offenses. The trial court imposed a mandatory consecutive life sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a homicide. After unsuccessfully filing two applications for postconviction relief, Defendant filed this third petition for postconviction relief, which the district court also denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's mandatory consecutive life sentence for discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence resulting in death did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; (2) Defendant's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder and discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence did not violate the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy; and (3) defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Linde v. State" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff failed to pay taxes on property she owned, Defendant purchased the property at a tax sale. Over a year after the tax sale, Defendant filed a petition to foreclose Plaintiff's right of redemption. The superior court granted Defendant's motion and entered a final decree foreclosing Plaintiff's right of redemption and vesting legal title in the property to Defendant. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action seeking to vacate the final decree. The trial justice granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish under R.I. Gen. Laws 44-9-24 that she did not receive notice of the petition to foreclose or that no taxes were owed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff was not deprived of due process because of an irregularity in the notices of the petition to foreclose because the irregularity was neither substantial nor misleading; and (2) Plaintiff's argument that a final decree could not have entered without a default having first entered against her was unavailing because the explicit language of section 44-9-30 clearly provides that a default is not a prerequisite to the entry of a final decree foreclosing the right of redemption. View "Johnson v. QBAR Assocs." on Justia Law

After Father's two daughters were committed to the care and custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), DCYF filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights to the children. After a trial on the termination petition, the family court terminated Father's parental rights to both daughters. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in finding there was clear and convincing evidence of DCYF's reasonable efforts towards reunification; (2) the trial justice did not err in finding that there was no substantial probability of the children returning to Father's care within a reasonable period of time; and (3) there was sufficient proof to support the trial justice's finding of abandonment. View "In re Lauren B. " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder that involved aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting that the root cause of his troubles was alcoholism and that he was now sober. The hearing justice denied the motion, noting that Defendant had not accepted responsibility for the murder of the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion, fail to properly consider the trial justice's findings, or deficiently consider the arguments before him. View "State v. Mlyniec" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering and felony assault with a dangerous weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial because the the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence; (2) did not abuse his discretion by deciding not to permit defense counsel to question prospective jurors about eyewitness testimony during voir dire; and (3) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of assault with a dangerous weapon because the evidence was sufficient to prove that the intruder's hands, by choking the complainant, were used as a dangerous weapon as statutorily required. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Property Owner owned two adjacent lots, a house lot and a vacant lot. Property Owner mortgaged certain real property to Option One Mortgage Corporation. Property Owner then conveyed its house lot to an individual who, in turn, granted a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). Aurora Loan Services, LLC was the servicer for MERS. Aurora later informed Option One that it intended to foreclose on the house lot. Option One filed a complaint seeking a declaration that Option One had a valid first lien encumbrance on the house lot that was superior to the Aurora mortgage. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Option One. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Option One mortgage was a valid first lien on the house lot where (1) there was no dispute the Option One mortgage was properly recorded in the town records so any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee, including Aurora, was charged with constructive notice of the Option One mortgage; and (2) a prior deed reference in the Option One mortgage description was sufficient to put a subsequent purchaser or mortgagee on notice that the Option One mortgage was intended to encumber both the house lot and the vacant lot. View "Option One Mortgage Corp. v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC" on Justia Law