Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Plaintiff agreed to lease a motor vehicle he learned that he had been charged separately for property tax on the leased vehicle and an additional seven percent sales tax paid on that amount. Plaintiff filed a claim for a refund in the amount of sales tax he had paid on the property tax. The Division of Taxation denied Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the district court. Contemporaneously, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the superior court, seeking various forms of relief and seeking to certify his complaint as a class action. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over “tax matters.” View "Barone v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled nolo contendere to three counts of second-degree child molestation. Before he was sentenced, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The trial justice denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to three concurrent sentences of fifteen years at the Adult Correctional Institutions. Eighteen months after sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, arguing that his plea to the criminal charges should be set aside because his attorney did not inform him that the attorney was undergoing personal struggles during his representation of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's appeal was not properly before the court; and (2) even if Defendant's argument was properly made, the argument was without merit.View "State v. Castriotta" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree child molestation. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial justice denied the application, concluding that Appellant failed to establish that his counsel’s performance was deficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding that trial counsel performed at a high level and in thus denying Appellant’s application for postconviction relief. View "Merida v. State" on Justia Law

In 1998, Applicant was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Applicant later filed an application for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. In connection with his application, Applicant filed a subpoena duces tecum seeking discovery of the mental health records of Appellant, who testified as an eyewitness in Applicant's murder trial. Appellant filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded with directions to make further factual findings, holding that the trial justice erred in ordering the release of Appellant's health care records without first conducting the necessary statutory analysis.View "DePina v. State" on Justia Law

Two young men, Brendan O’Connell Roberti and Jason Goffe, were killed in a tragic automobile collision. Plaintiffs, the co-administrators of the estate of Roberti, sued William Walmsley, who was driving the vehicle that collided with the vehicle in which Roberti was a passenger when he was killed. A jury found that Walmsley was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of Roberti’s death. The trial justice, however, granted Walmsley’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that there was no evidence establishing that Defendant’s operation of his vehicle was a proximate cause of the collision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court granting Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that a reasonable jury could assign liability to Walmsley. View "O’Connell v. Walmsley" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce from Dean Miller, Plaintiff and Dean executed a property settlement agreement providing that Dean would maintain life insurance for the benefit of the parties' four minor children until they reached the age of majority. Dean subsequently executed a service request form listing his children as the beneficiaries of his life insurance policy and instructing that beneficial interests be paid to and managed by Kristin Saunders as custodial trustee for the benefit of his minor children. After Dean died, funds from his life insurance policy were distributed to Saunders. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief asking the superior court to declare that Dean's four children were the sole beneficiaries of his life insurance policy. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Dean created a valid custodial trust pursuant to the Rhode Island Uniform Custodial Trust Act (RIUCTA) and that the trust was not inconsistent with Dean's obligations under the property settlement agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Dean created a custodial trust pursuant to RIUCTA; and (2) Dean did not violate the property settlement agreement by designating Saunders as custodial trustee on the service request form.View "Miller v. Saunders" on Justia Law

After an automobile accident that occurred between Camella Martin and Michael Coyne, Camella suffered a number of injuries. Camella died two years after the accident. Dennis Martin, as executor of the estate of Camella, filed this negligence action against Coyne. After a jury trial, judgment was entered for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in granting Defendant's motion in limine to exclude a document from being submitted as evidence because the document was inadmissible hearsay; and (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, as the evidence supported the jury's verdict. View "Martin v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, and using a firearm while committing a crime of violence. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial justice erred by accepting certain testimony. The trial justice denied Defendant's motion. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial justice overlooked and misconceived material evidence when denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice articulated adequate grounds for denying Defendant's motion and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence when making his decision.View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

In 1990, Defendant pled nolo contendere to twenty-six offenses, including arson and a number of robberies. Defendant was sentenced to forty years' incarceration with twenty-eight years suspended, with probation, on the one arson and eight robbery charges. In 2011, a probation violation hearing was held based upon allegations of sexual assault. Thirteen witnesses testified during the hearing regarding the allegations. The superior court subsequently found Defendant to be in violation of the terms of his probation and sentenced him to serve the previously imposed suspended sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice's credibility findings were not arbitrary or capricious.View "State v. Raso" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several crimes in connection with a drive-by shooting. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle without a license and attempting to elude a police officer. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial with respect to both convictions. The trial justice granted the motion on the charge of attempting to elude a police officer but denied the motion with respect to the firearm charge. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment of conviction, holding that the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial with respect to the charge of carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle without a license. View "State v. Nabe" on Justia Law