Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with eleven offenses in a single indictment, most notably murder. After a jury trial, guilty verdicts were returned on all counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to three consecutive life sentences plus an additional thirty-five consecutive nonparoleable years. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when he admitted character evidence under R.I. R. Evid. 404(b); and (2) the prosecutor did not make inappropriate or inflammatory comments during closing arguments that warranted a new trial. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to six months’ incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial and motion for a judgment of acquittal, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial, as his speech rose to the level of the criminal offense with which he was charged; (2) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (3) Defendant’s argument that the criminal complaint lodged against him was insufficient as a matter of law to place him on notice of the charge against him was not properly preserved for appellate review. View "State v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this petition for the appointment of a guardian over their father. After the probate court denied Plaintiffs’ petition, Plaintiffs appealed. The superior court dismissed the complaint seeking review from the probate decision for Plaintiffs’ failure to adhere to statutory deadlines. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 9-21-6 arguing that the dismissal of the probate court appeal was improper. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the superior court, holding that Plaintiffs’ failure to have satisfied the requirements of R.I. Gen. Laws 33-23-1(a) constituted excusable neglect, and therefore, justice required that Plaintiffs’ appeal be allowed to proceed under section 9-21-6. View "Duffy v. Estate of Scire" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a civil action against a physician and his employer alleging that Defendants negligently failed to protect the confidentiality of his HIV test results and seeking to recover both compensatory and exemplary damages. The superior court granted Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff’s claims for exemplary damages and severed Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages without holding an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Palmisano v. Toth. The Supreme Court quashed the order of the superior court, holding that the hearing justice erred failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing in accordance with the Court’s holding in Palmisano on Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages. Remanded. View "Sherman v. Ejnes" on Justia Law

The consolidated appeals arose out of a dispute between the Town of Johnston and Plaintiffs, former Town police officers who retired on injury disability. Plaintiffs filed complaints seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding entitlement to funds held in certain accounts. The Town refused to authorize distribution of amounts credited to the respective accounts, which were owned by the Town but maintained with Plaintiffs’ names and social security numbers. The superior court denied the Town’s motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiffs’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs was not warranted because there were a multitude of factual issues that must be resolved. View "Ross v. Town of Johnston" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of burglary, breaking and entering, and receiving stolen goods. Defendant filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging several grounds for relief regarding the voluntariness of his plea and the performance of his trial counsel. After a hearing, the superior court denied Defendant’s application for postconviction relief, finding that Defendant failed to carry his burden of proof and establish his claim and that Defendant’s testimony was self-serving and not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in its judgment. View "Lopes v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, David Miller and Miller’s Auto Body, alleged that they were subject to a malicious investigation into suspected insurance fraud that Defendants, three insurance companies, believed was taking place at Plaintiffs’ auto-body shop. Miller was charged with, among other charges, four counts of insurance fraud. The criminal information was dismissed by the Attorney General, but the dismissal was conditioned on an agreement between Miller and the Attorney General requiring Miller to execute a general liability release in favor of Defendants. More than one year after executing the release, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants. The trial court granted pretrial summary judgment for Defendants on the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims. Only Plaintiffs’ abuse-of-process claim went to trial. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Plaintiff against the two remaining defendants. The trial court subsequently granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of one defendant but denied the other defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the release executed by Miller before he initiated suit barred all his claims against the defendants. View "Miller v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of second-degree child molestation. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress an incriminating confession he gave to the police while in custody because the statement was given voluntarily; (2) permitting an attending physician at a child protection program who had examined the victim on the night of the incident to testify regarding the explanation of a normal examination over defense counsel’s objection; and (3) denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. View "State v. Armour" on Justia Law

Atwood Health Properties, LLC contracted with Calson Construction Company to construct a medical office building. Calson engaged Gem Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. (GEM) as a subcontractor to design and install a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Five years after the project was completed, Atwood sold the building to Atwood Medical Properties, LLC (AMP). When AMP experienced compressor failures in the HVAC system, AMP filed suit against Atwood. Atwood paid for a new HVAC system and initiated arbitration proceedings against Calson to recover its costs. Calson, in turn, initiated an arbitration proceeding against GEM for indemnification under the parties’ contract. The two arbitration proceedings were consolidated. The arbitrator concluded that Calson should pay Atwood $358,223 and that GEM should pay Calson that same amount. The superior court confirmed the arbitration award. GEM appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice properly confirmed the arbitration award. View "Atwood Health Props., LLC v. Calson Constr. Co." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff underwent cervical disk replacement surgery at Rhode Island Hospital she suffered a stroke caused by a vertebral artery dissection. Dr. Gita Pensa at Newport Hospital treated Plaintiff when she first complained of pain due to the stroke, but Plaintiff was later discharged from the hospital. Plaintiff filed this medical malpractice action against Newport Hospital, Dr. Pensa, and NewPort Emergency Physicians, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), alleging negligence and lack of informed consent. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants, finding that Plaintiff had failed to prove that Dr. Pensa had breached the standard of care. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial justice’s erroneous admission into evidence of three documents during the voir dire of Plaintiff’s standard-of-care expert, combined with the questionable wording of one question on the jury verdict form, was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. View "O’Connor v. Newport Hosp." on Justia Law