Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling house and one count of breaking and entering of a dwelling house. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) with respect to the breaking and entering count, the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial because the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant lacked consent to enter the house; and (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling house count because the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence. View "State v. Grantley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder, possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a violent crime, and other crimes. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for first-degree murder and using a firearm during a violent crime. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in excluding the testimony of Stephen Bodden on the grounds that Bodden effectively invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s appeal was not properly before the Court; and (2) nonetheless, the trial justice did not err when he ruled that Bodden properly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege during the voir dire examination. View "State v. Barros" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of felony assault on a police officer, simple assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, driving under the influence of alcohol, and obstructing a police officer. During trial, the testimony each side presented diverged significantly, and the trial justice’s guilt assessment turned on his impression of witness credibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that sufficient credible and competent evidence supported the trial justice’s guilt determinations on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive any material evidence in reaching his decision. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In 1992, a jury found Defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. In 2004, Defendant filed an application for postconviction relief pursuant to Rhode Island’s Innocence Protection Act. For almost a decade, various orders were entered and discovery took place. In 2015, Defendant filed a second amended application for postconviction relief. The hearing justice granted Defendant’s application for postconviction relief and vacated his conviction, finding two Brady violations based on the State’s suppression of favorable evidence and a due process violation resulting from the police department’s unduly suggestive interviewing of witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment vacating Defendant’s conviction, holding that the hearing justice erred in vacating Defendant’s conviction on the basis of the former prosecutor’s failure to disclose pretrial statements of one of the State’s witnesses, and this claim of error was dispositive of the State’s appeal. View "Tempest v. State" on Justia Law

In 1996, Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to several sex offenses and was sentenced to a term of incarceration. After Defendant was released on probation, he applied for a transfer of his probation supervision from Rhode Island to Pennsylvania pursuant to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS). Pennsylvania accepted the transfer request and imposed additional conditions of supervision upon Defendant. Defendant violated the additional conditions. As a result, the State of Rhode Island filed a notice of probation violation. The probation violation hearing justice adjudged Defendant to be a probation violator, determining that ICAOS rules mandated that he treat the violations to which Defendant admitted as a violation of his Rhode Island probation. The hearing justice then executed eight years of Defendant’s suspended sentence and imposed new conditions of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that Defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation; (2) the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion in ordering Defendant to serve eight years of his suspended sentence; but (3) in imposing two additional conditions, the hearing justice plainly exceeded his statutory jurisdiction. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and vandalism. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in granting the State’s motion to preclude Defendant from discussing self-defense in his closing argument and by refusing to instruct the jury on the law of self-defense. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction for felony assault with a dangerous weapon, holding (1) the trial justice erred by refusing to include a self-defense instruction in the jury charge; and (2) the holding with respect to the felony assault conviction does not affect Defendant’s conviction for vandalism. View "State v. Soler" on Justia Law

In 1994, Applicant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of maintaining a narcotics nuisance. In 2012, Applicant filed a pro se application seeking to vacate his nolo contendere plea. In his application Applicant argued that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The hearing justice entered judgment for the State and dismissed the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in finding that Applicant understood the nature and consequences of his plea; (2) the trial justice properly dismissed Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) the efforts of postconviction counsel were adequate. View "Reyes v. State" on Justia Law

The family court entered a decree that terminated Respondent’s parental rights. The decree rested primarily on Respondent's criminal convictions, including a conviction for first-degree murder. While Respondent’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court vacated Respondent’s criminal convictions and corresponding sentences, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court vacated the decree terminating Respondent’s parental rights, holding that, without Respondent's criminal convictions and lengthy incarceration, the family court did not have sufficient factual support to find that Respondent was an unfit parent. Remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Izabella G." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that the trial justice erred in refusing to allow Defendant to make an opening statement to the jury without affording him the opportunity to articulate the nature of the purportedly affirmative evidence he intended to elicit on cross-examination of the state’s witnesses. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the confession he made to the police, denying his motion for a new trial, and making certain evidentiary rulings at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) the challenged evidentiary rulings were correctly made; and (3) the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law