Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Defendant was sentenced to a term of fifteen years’ incarceration, with five years to serve and ten years suspended, with probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as the State presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the offense; and (2) the issue of whether the trial justice erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession was not properly before the Court for review. View "State v. Maria" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of domestic simple assault and domestic disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) sufficient competent and credible evidence existed in the record to support the trial justice’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the offenses; (2) the trial justice did not err in her credibility determinations and factual findings and applied the correct burden of proof with respect to Defendant’s claim of self-defense; (3) the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in her evidentiary rulings and or in limiting cross-examination; and (4) the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Van Dongen" on Justia Law

The dispute in this receivership action centered on the receiver’s sale of commercial property owned by P.T.A. Realty, LLC to NMLM Realty, LLC. NMLM’s agent, Liberty Title & Escrow Company, failed to list all the municipal taxes owed on the property, resulting in an overpayment of funds to Bank of America, N.A. NMLM filed a petition for restitution against the Bank, which Liberty incorporated in its own petition for restitution against the Bank. The Bank argued that it was insulated from a restitution claim as a third-party creditor that received the payment in good faith and without notice of Liberty’s error. A hearing justice ruled in favor of the Bank. NMLM and Liberty filed a joint notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no evidence that, at the time the proceeds from the sale were disbursed, the Bank knew that it was receiving an overpayment of funds; and (2) therefore, the Bank received the excess funds in good faith, and NMLM and Liberty could not seek the return of their erroneous payment predicated on the theory of unjust enrichment. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. P.T.A. Realty, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

John Izzo was the owner of certain property and his mother, Carmel Izzo, held a mortgage on the property. After the failure to pay sewer fees, the property was put up for sale at a tax sale. Defendant purchased the property and filed a petition to foreclose the Izzos’ (Plaintiffs) rights of redemption on the property (the petition). After a hearing, a final decree was entered foreclosing Plaintiffs’ rights of redemption to the property. Plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking entry of an order vacating the final decree foreclosing their rights of redemption, alleging inadequate notice of the petition. The trial justice granted Plaintiffs’ request, concluding that inadequate notice to Plaintiffs of the petition amounted to a denial of due process. An order subsequently implemented the trial justice’s bench decision and vacated the final decree foreclosing Plaintiffs’ rights of redemption. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court, holding (1) the trial justice erred in finding that notice of the petition as it pertained to John was inadequate since John was estopped from raising such an argument; and (2) the notice provided to Carmel was adequate. View "Izzo v. Victor Realty" on Justia Law

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