Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of simple assault. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of two witnesses during her closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion by allowing the state to impeach Defendant’s credibility with his fourteen prior criminal convictions; and (2) although a portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument was akin to vouching, the trial justice did not err by refusing to pass the case. View "State v. Whitfield" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment of conviction and its denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to pass the case after the prosecutor engaged in an improper line of questioning to a witness, as any prejudice which may have resulted was cured by the trial justice’s instruction to the jury; and (2) the trial justice did not misconceive or overlook material testimony and did not otherwise commit clear error in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Hie" on Justia Law

In 1990, Applicant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual assault. In 2001, Applicant filed a pro se application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and trial error. In 2005, the hearing justice denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice properly did not commit clear error or misconceive material evidence in rendering his decision, as (1) Applicant’s claims relating to alleged errors committed by the trial justice were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) Applicant failed to show to his trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. View "Lamoureux v. State" 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

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts of first-degree sexual assault and four counts of second-degree sexual assault stemming from his unlawful conduct with his girlfriend’s daughter. Defendant was sentenced to fifty years, with twenty-five years suspended, with probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in admitting evidence concerning prior acts of misconduct committed by Defendant against the complainant, including “play fighting” evidence and corporal punishment evidence; (2) did not err by allowing an examining physician to testify to statements made by the complainant during the course of her treatment; and (3) did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several counts of first-degree child molestation and second-degree child molestation stemming from Defendant's unlawful conduct with the niece of his girlfriend. The case proceeded to trial. During the redirect-examination of the complaining witness, the trial justice admitted into evidence some nonspecific testimony about previous, uncharged acts of sexual misconduct. The jury eventually convicted Defendant of two counts of first-degree child molestation and three counts of second-degree child molestation. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial justice’s admission of the testimony about prior bad acts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion when she permitted the complaining witness to testify about other nonspecific evidence of prior bad acts. View "State v. Acevedo" on Justia Law

In 1998 after a plea hearing, the hearing justice accepted Amadeu Santos’s plea of nolo contendere to three counts of second-degree sexual assault. In 2012, Santos filed an application for postconviction relief, asserting that the 1998 plea colloquy did not comply with the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The hearing justice denied Santos’s application, finding that it was barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice’s decision regarding the unreasonableness of Santos’s delay was not clearly wrong, nor did it constitute an abuse of discretion. View "Santos v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not excluding evidence that he was carrying cash at the time of his arrest and in denying him any remedy for the State’s late disclosure of that evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding that the trial justice did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, as the fact that Defendant had some amount of cash on his person at the time of the arrest was not unfairly prejudicial evidence. View "State v. Marte" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant appealed the trial justice’s denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing that the State failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act in self-defense when she killed the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment of conviction, holding that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material and relevant evidence and was not otherwise clearly wrong in her denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Garrett" on Justia Law