Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant was arrested by the Rhode Island State Police on January 13, 2017, following allegations of child molestation by the complainant, A.R. During the post-arrest interview, the defendant admitted to various instances of sexual contact with A.R. Subsequently, the state filed a ten-count criminal information against the defendant, including eight counts of second-degree child molestation. The defendant moved to suppress his post-arrest statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his due process rights and Rule 5(a) of the District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. He also sought to introduce expert testimony on false confessions, which the state moved to preclude.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress, finding that his statements were made voluntarily and that the delay in presentment to the District Court was not causative of his confession. The court also granted the state's motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony on false confessions, reasoning that it would invade the jury's province and that effective cross-examination of the police would suffice. The jury found the defendant guilty on five counts of second-degree child molestation, and the trial justice denied the defendant's motion for a new trial.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion to suppress, as the defendant's statements were made voluntarily under the totality of the circumstances. The Court also upheld the exclusion of the expert testimony on false confessions, agreeing that it would improperly influence the jury's role in determining credibility. Finally, the Court found no error in the trial justice's denial of the motion for a new trial, as the trial justice had appropriately evaluated the evidence and witness credibility. View "State v. Coletta" on Justia Law

The case involves allegations of child molestation against the defendant, who was indicted on one count of first-degree child molestation and two counts of second-degree child molestation. The complaining witness, a minor, accused the defendant of multiple instances of molestation occurring when she was between four and eight years old. The defendant was convicted by a jury on one count of first-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree child molestation. He was sentenced to a sixty-year sentence, with twenty-five years to be served, for the first-degree count, and a concurrent twenty-five-year sentence for the second-degree count.In the Providence County Superior Court, the trial justice granted the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on one of the two counts of second-degree child molestation. The jury found the defendant guilty on the remaining counts. The defendant did not file a motion for a new trial. The trial justice later sentenced the defendant, and a judgment of conviction and commitment was entered.The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, arguing that the trial justice erred by allowing a medical expert to testify in a manner that impermissibly bolstered the complaining witness’s testimony. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case and determined that the defendant had not properly preserved his objection to the expert’s testimony for appellate review. The court noted that the defendant failed to object to the specific questions that formed the basis of his appeal and did not move to strike the expert’s answers or request a cautionary instruction. Consequently, the court deemed the issue waived and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "State v. Lantigua" on Justia Law

In the early morning of June 26, 2018, David Page was shot and killed while picking up acquaintances at 100 Lowell Avenue. The Providence Police Department (PPD) responded and found Mr. Page unresponsive in his car. Surveillance footage showed a black vehicle near the scene. On July 2, 2018, during unrelated investigations, police found a black Audi linked to Kennedy Terrero. Further investigation connected this Audi to the shooting. Terrero, under a cooperation agreement, testified against Jaythan Hang and Chandanoeuth Hay, implicating them in the shooting.The Superior Court jury found Hang guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy, felony assault, and firearms offenses. Hang appealed, arguing the trial justice erred in several pretrial and trial rulings, including denying a motion for severance, admitting evidence of prior bad acts, admitting statements against interest, and allowing lay opinion testimony. He also challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial on the conspiracy count.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found no abuse of discretion in the trial justice's decisions. The court held that the evidence of prior bad acts was admissible to show motive and intent, and the lay opinion testimony was properly admitted. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction, noting the corroborative evidence and testimony presented at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment of conviction. View "State v. Hang" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted on charges including first-degree robbery, conspiracy, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, assault with a dangerous weapon, and possessing pistols without licenses. He reached a plea agreement with the state, which included a maximum sentence of eighty years with fifty years to serve, twenty of which would be nonparolable, and a thirty-year suspended sentence. The defendant pled guilty, and the trial justice accepted the plea and sentenced him to a term of twenty years, a concurrent term of ten years, a consecutive term of twenty years without parole, a consecutive suspended sentence of twenty years, and a concurrent suspended sentence of ten years.The defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence under Rule 35, arguing that the trial justice misconceived material evidence and failed to consider mitigating factors. The state objected, asserting that the defendant had forfeited his right to file a Rule 35 motion as part of his plea agreement. The trial justice denied the motion, finding no grounds for relief, and the defendant appealed.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial justice did not demonstrate prejudice or personal bias against the defendant, and his decision not to recuse himself was proper. The court also held that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the Rule 35 motion, as the defendant's sentence was below the statutory maximum and the agreed-upon cap. The court affirmed the order of the Superior Court. View "State v. McLean" on Justia Law

In 1995, Michael Lambert was indicted for first-degree murder and later convicted of second-degree murder and committing a crime of violence while armed. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and an additional consecutive ten-year sentence for the crime of violence. His convictions were affirmed in 1997. After being denied parole multiple times, Lambert was granted parole in 2019, effective December 2020. However, in 2020, the Parole Board amended its decision, stating Lambert should have been paroled to his consecutive sentence, not the community.Lambert filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2021, claiming unlawful detention due to the Rhode Island Department of Corrections' (RIDOC) method of calculating parole eligibility. The petition was treated as an application for postconviction relief, and the Superior Court appointed counsel for Lambert. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted Lambert's motion, ordering his immediate release on parole to the community.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case. The Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision to aggregate Lambert's sentences for parole eligibility, referencing its recent decision in Neves v. State, which mandated aggregating sentences for parole purposes. However, the Court quashed the part of the Superior Court's judgment that ordered Lambert's immediate release to the community, stating that the Parole Board had only paroled him to his consecutive sentence, not the community. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Lambert v. Salisbury" on Justia Law

In 1990, Robert Raso pled nolo contendere to multiple criminal charges, including second-degree sexual assault, arson, and various robberies. He was sentenced to forty years, with twelve years to serve and twenty-eight years suspended with probation. After serving his time, Raso was released on probation. In 2011, a probation-violation report was filed against Raso, alleging he had sexually assaulted his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter, Natalie. During the probation-violation hearing, Natalie testified about the abuse, and despite a coerced recantation, the court found her original testimony credible. The court revoked Raso’s suspended sentence, ordering him to serve twenty-five years.Raso appealed the probation-violation determination, which was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Subsequently, Raso filed a motion to terminate his imprisonment under G.L. 1956 § 12-19-18(b)(5), arguing that the dismissal of the first-degree sexual assault charge indicated a lack of probable cause. The Superior Court denied this motion, finding no doubt about Raso’s culpability or probable cause.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the Superior Court’s decision. The court found that the state’s dismissal of the first-degree sexual assault charge was motivated by a desire to spare Natalie further trauma and satisfaction with the twenty-five-year sentence, not due to a lack of probable cause or doubt about Raso’s culpability. The court emphasized that Raso had received a full evidentiary hearing, and the findings of the trial justices were supported by the record. The order denying the motion to terminate imprisonment was affirmed. View "State v. Raso" on Justia Law

In the early morning of August 11, 2021, Officer Robert Savage of the Providence Police Department responded to a 911 call at a home on Canton Street, where he encountered gunfire from Luis Roman, who was heavily intoxicated and fired numerous shots from an AR-15 rifle at the officer's vehicle. The call was made by Roman's girlfriend, Stephanie Perez, after Roman physically assaulted her. Roman fled but was later arrested at his mother's house. He was indicted on ten charges, including assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a crime of violence.Roman pled guilty to eight of the ten charges, acknowledging his status as a habitual offender and probation violator. The Superior Court sentenced him to seventy years, with thirty years to serve, including ten nonparolable years. Roman filed a motion to reduce his sentence under Rule 35, arguing that the sentencing justice did not adequately consider his diminished capacity and other mitigating factors. The motion was denied, with the court noting Roman's waiver of his right to file such a motion due to his guilty plea and finding the sentence appropriate given the circumstances.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order. The court held that the sentencing justice acted within his discretion, considering Roman's violent criminal history and the severity of his actions. The court found no due process violation in the sentencing justice's consideration of Roman's alleged statement about preferring a shootout with police over returning to prison. The sentence was deemed justified and not grossly disparate from other sentences for similar offenses. View "State v. Roman" on Justia Law

On June 26, 2018, a fatal shooting occurred near 100 Lowell Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, resulting in the death of David Page. The investigation into the murder led to the arrest of Chandanoeuth Hay and his codefendant, Jaythan Hang. Hay was charged with ten counts, including first-degree murder, conspiracy, assault with a dangerous weapon, and firearm-related offenses. A grand jury indicted Hay on December 9, 2019. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence linking Hay to the crime, including testimony from a cooperating witness, Kennedy Terrero, who described gang affiliations and prior violent incidents involving Hay.The Providence County Superior Court held pretrial hearings on several motions filed by Hay, including motions to suppress evidence and exclude certain testimonies and photographs. The trial justice denied these motions, allowing the evidence to be presented at trial. Hay was subsequently found guilty on all counts by a jury on October 6, 2022. Hay filed motions for a new trial and judgment of acquittal, which were denied by the trial justice. On February 13, 2023, Hay was sentenced to multiple consecutive and concurrent prison terms, including two life sentences.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed Hay's appeal, which raised four grounds for reversal: the admission of lay opinion testimony by a police sergeant, the denial of a Franks hearing, the admission of testimony about unrelated shootings, and the admission of certain photographs. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial justice's rulings. The Court held that the lay opinion testimony was properly admitted, the denial of the Franks hearing was justified, the Rule 404(b) evidence was relevant and not overly prejudicial, and the photographs were admissible to demonstrate Hay's relationship with Terrero and access to firearms. View "State v. Hay" on Justia Law

In 1997, Christopher Thornton was convicted of multiple charges, including assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, violating a no-contact order, kidnapping, and witness intimidation. He was sentenced to consecutive terms for each conviction. Thornton's convictions were upheld by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in 2002. He subsequently filed three unsuccessful petitions for postconviction relief. In 2015, Thornton filed a fourth petition, raising several claims.The Superior Court partially granted Thornton's fourth petition for postconviction relief, vacating his convictions for felony assault resulting in serious bodily injury and witness intimidation. The court found that the trial justice had failed to properly instruct the jury on the definitions of "serious bodily injury" and "criminal proceeding," which led to the vacating of these convictions. The state argued that Thornton's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as they could have been raised in his previous petitions.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Superior Court erred in granting postconviction relief. The Supreme Court held that Thornton's claims were indeed barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as codified in § 10-9.1-8, which precludes the relitigation of issues that could have been raised in prior proceedings. The court found no compelling reason to apply the interest-of-justice exception to Thornton's claims, as there was no newly discovered evidence or claim of actual innocence. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the portions of the Superior Court's amended judgment that vacated Thornton's convictions for felony assault resulting in serious bodily injury and witness intimidation. View "Thornton v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

Brian Smith was charged with simple assault and second-degree child molestation in 2015 for an incident at a Newport Polo event where he allegedly touched two children inappropriately. He was found guilty of simple assault and sentenced to two years in prison. While this case was pending, Smith was charged with second-degree child molestation in 2015 after his niece reported that he had sexually assaulted her in 2004. Smith pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to ten years, with two years to serve. In 2016, Smith faced additional charges of second-degree child molestation involving three other victims. He pled nolo contendere to two counts and was sentenced to ten years, with six years to serve.The Sex Offender Board of Review classified Smith as a level III sex offender, indicating a high risk to reoffend. Smith objected to this classification and sought review in the Superior Court. The Superior Court magistrate affirmed the board’s classification after considering various risk-assessment tools, police narratives, and Smith’s criminal history. Smith appealed the magistrate’s decision to a Superior Court justice, who also affirmed the classification, concluding that the magistrate had not erred in his decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court found that Smith’s procedural due process rights were not violated, as he was given ample opportunity to challenge the board’s findings. The Court also determined that the state had established a prima facie case for the level III classification using validated risk-assessment tools and other relevant evidence. Smith’s arguments regarding the improper consideration of his nolo contendere pleas and the board’s use of unsubstantiated information were rejected. The Court concluded that the board had used reasonable means to collect information and that the state’s interest in protecting the community justified the classification. View "Rhode Island Department of Attorney General v. Smith" on Justia Law