Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff operated a Wendy’s restaurant in East Greenwich. One defendant had received permission to build a new McDonald’s restaurant with a drive-through window on property located down the street. Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction and a writ of mandamus to prevent the construction of the drive-through facility until McDonald’s first submitted a special-use permit application for the drive-through window to the Town of East Greenwich’s Zoning Board of Review. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice correctly concluded that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the amended East Greenwich Zoning Ordinance permitted drive-through uses as a matter of right. View "CCF, LLC v. Pimental" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she was shopping at a Walgreens store when she was hit and injured by a ball that an employee of Walgreens had thrown. The trial justice eventually dismissed the case with prejudice “for failure to proceed at trial” after first denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that, in light of the unusual circumstances of this case, the trial justice abused her discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution and in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and/or mistrial. View "Cotter v. Dias" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney, represented Plaintiff in post-final judgment divorce proceedings. Defendant later withdrew as counsel with the family court’s approval. Three years later, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant on each of Plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s legal malpractice and fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial justice did not err in concluding that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff’s malpractice claims necessarily failed because she did not retain an expert witness to testify in support of her case; and (3) Plaintiff’s remaining claims on appeal were wholly without merit. View "Behroozi v. Kirshenbaum" on Justia Law