Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury-waived trial, the trial justice entered judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The justice also entered judgment in favor of Defendant on his counterclaim for conversion. Plaintiff appealed the adverse rulings and also appealed the denial of her post-trial motion for relief from the superior court judgment, which motion invoked Rule 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) determining that there was no contract; (2) finding in Defendant’s favor on his conversion counterclaim; and (3) dismissing Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. View "Turdo v. Main" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon and assault with a dangerous weapon. Appellant was also charged with first-degree murder, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that charge. After a second jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree murder. Appellant later filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing that his second trial was not fair because the justice who presided over that trial had previously represented Appellant in family court when Appellant was a minor. Appellant also alleged that his counsel at the second murder trial was ineffective. After a hearing, the hearing justice denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice did not err in denying postconviction relief on the grounds that the trial justice at Appellant’s second murder trial should have recused; and (2) Appellant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance at Appellant’s second murder trial. View "Perry v. State" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were both dual citizens of the United States and the Republic of Ireland. The parties later divorced. In accordance with a property settlement agreement, the parties share joint custody of their three children, with Mother having physical placement. As part of the agreement, the parties stipulated that future child-custody disputes shall remain under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that of the Rhode Island Family Court. The parties stayed with Mother in Ireland and visited Father in Rhode Island each summer. Father later filed three motions in the Rhode Island Family Court, including an ex parte emergency motion to modify custody and placement. The court granted the ex parte order. Mother moved to vacate the order and sought to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where the children had resided in Ireland continuously for more than five years. After a hearing, The hearing justice declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the hearing justice abused her discretion in executing both steps of the necessary two-part analysis under section 15-14.1-19 of the UCCJEA and by declining jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. View "Hogan v. McAndrew" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony assault with a dangerous weapon, discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence, and carrying a handgun without a license. Defendant appealed, arguing primarily that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the testimony of the victim was not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not clearly err or overlook or misconceive relevant and material evidence in concluding that the victim was a credible witness; and (2) any alleged shortcomings in the investigation in the aftermath of the shooting were harmless. View "State v. Roldan" on Justia Law

The Free & Clear Company (Free & Clear) filed suit alleging that the Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC) owed it damages. NBC admitted liability, and the case proceed to trial on the issue of damages only. The jury returned a verdict for Free & Clear in the amount of $680,277, and the trial justice added prejudgment interest in the amount of $756,169. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in instructing the jury; (2) properly reviewed the testimony of Free & Clear’s expert witness when issuing his decision; (3) did not err in refusing to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to portions of the testimony of Free & Clear’s expert witness; (4) did not err in denying NBC’s motion for a remittitur; (5) correctly calculated prejudgment interest; and (6) did not err by denying NBC’s motion for partial judgment as a matter of law. Further, the jury’s award of damages was not based on impermissible speculation. View "Free & Clear Co. v. Narragansett Bay Comm’n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder, using a firearm while committing a crime of violence resulting in a death, and carrying a pistol without a license. Defendant appealed, asserting a number of arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of convictions, holding (1) the trial justice did not err when he declined to give a specific limiting instruction requested by Defendant to disregard a statement that the State gave during opening statements; (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant’s request for “some sort of Neil v. Biggers identification instruction; (3) Defendant failed to preserve for appeal his argument that the trial justice admitted prejudicial evidence; and (4) the trial justice did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured at a park owned by the Town of South Kingstown while she was a spectator at a Little League baseball game organized by the South Kingstown Little League (Defendant). Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging that Defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises of the baseball field. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding that Defendant had no duty to inspect and maintain the park where Defendant had no ownership interest in the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Town was responsible for maintenance of the park, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff. View "Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in (1) admitting prior testimony of a witness at a coconspirator’s trial about Defendant’s level of intoxication on the night of the shooting; and (2) denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any prior testimony that was admitted, by any means, regarding Defendant’s level of intoxication was immaterial to his defense, and Defendant did not suffer prejudice; and (2) the trial justice properly assessed the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and articulated adequate reasons for denying Defendant’s motion. View "State v. Offley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the children of William B. Ross, appealed the probate of William's estate. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenged the fifth and final accounting of the decedent’s guardian and sister, Nancy Howard, alleging that Howard breached her fiduciary duty, failed to correct a conflict of interest, and violated the law in failing to obtain approval for the challenged accounting. The trial justice found in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ appeal of the probate court order approving the fifth and final accounting. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived the evidence presented during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding in favor of Defendants. View "In re Estate of Ross" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to a term of forty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) instructing the jury concerning Defendant’s claim of accidental homicide; (2) allowing the State some flexibility to pose questions in yes-or-no form; (3) failing to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor discussed testimony with the State’s witness, a medical examiner, during breaks in the witness’s testimony; and (4) allowing admission of a seven-and-a-half minute video depicting the scene of the murder, including the victim’s body. View "State v. Fry" on Justia Law