Paul Suttell

In State v. Oliveira, three defendants were tried on charges stemming from a 1995 drug-related shooting in Providence that resulted in the death of Grady Bolden during an attempted cocaine transaction. A jury convicted Gahlil Oliveira and Victor St. Hill of first-degree felony murder and all three defendants of conspiracy to violate the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the felony-murder convictions, holding that the underlying drug conspiracy did not qualify as a predicate felony for first-degree felony murder under the statute, while affirming the conspiracy convictions based on sufficient evidence of an agreement to possess and distribute controlled substances. The court emphasized that first-degree felony murder applies only to homicides occurring during specifically enumerated predicate offenses as designated by the legislature.

criminal law

The case involved a nine-week-old infant, Mackenzie, who sustained nineteen unexplained fractures, prompting the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) to file petitions in Family Court for the child's commitment due to abuse and for termination of parental rights on grounds of unfitness. The trial justice initially granted the abuse petition based on findings that the injuries were non-accidental and caused by the parents, but after additional hearings, medical expert testimony regarding possible conditions like temporary brittle bone disease, and psychiatric evaluations, the court reversed its ruling, finding that DCYF had failed to prove abuse by clear and convincing evidence and that reunification served the child's best interests; it dismissed both petitions. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals, holding that the trial justice acted within his discretion in reconsidering the evidence and that the justice system had provided adequate opportunity for all parties to present their cases. The court declined to address the termination petition separately since the underlying abuse finding was not sustained.

family law

The case concerned whether the Town Council of East Greenwich violated the Open Meetings Act when it voted to appoint members to the zoning board and planning board at an October 2001 meeting. The posted agenda listed only interviews for potential appointees, but the council proceeded to make three appointments after the interviews. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff Tanner, holding that the notice was inadequate because it did not inform the public that voting would occur, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed that ruling on the ground that the Open Meetings Act requires notice sufficient to alert citizens to the policy-making actions being considered. The Supreme Court vacated the award of attorney’s fees, however, because the record did not establish a knowing and willful violation.

procedure

In State v. Hallenbeck, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter after a jury trial for the stabbing death of Glenn Petersen at the Warwick Mall, following his acquittal on the charged offense of murder. The defendant appealed, raising six claims of error by the trial justice, including improper jury instructions on self-defense and manslaughter, denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, exclusion of the victim's criminal record, admission of a crime scene photograph, and sentencing issues. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error on any of the asserted grounds and that the defendant's challenge to the denial of his motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the court on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Eddie Linde, convicted of second-degree murder and related felonies after a shooting death at a Rhode Island motel stemming from a workplace dispute among ironworkers. Linde appealed his convictions, claiming error in the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from under his motel room mattress via a warrantless search to which his roommate consented, and in the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. It held that the roommate had common authority over the shared motel room sufficient to consent to the search under Fourth Amendment standards, and that the evidence did not support giving a self-defense instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Disla, the defendant appealed his Superior Court convictions for delivering heroin and conspiring to violate the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act, arguing insufficient evidence for the conspiracy count and that the trial justice should have declared a mistrial after improper testimony from a police detective. The detective had described an alleged coconspirator as a known narcotics user and referenced a surveillance photograph of the defendant taken on a different date and at a different location than the charged offense. The state conceded on appeal that it had presented insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the conspiracy conviction, affirmed the delivery conviction, and held that the trial justice's cautionary instructions to the jury adequately cured any potential prejudice from the detective's statements.

criminal law

This case is a reargument before the Rhode Island Supreme Court limited to the title and ownership of disputed parcels in the Goat Island South condominium development. The dispute centers on whether the declarant’s successors (IDC entities) validly exercised special development rights by recording a sixth amendment that purported to create a master unit consisting of airspace over the undeveloped North Unit just before those rights expired on December 31, 1994. The court reaffirmed its prior holdings in full, finding that defendants had not shown any error in the original analysis. It emphasized that the Rhode Island Condominium Act contains non-waivable consumer-protection provisions requiring strict compliance for creating or converting units, including detailed restrictions for any land-only units, and that the master declaration’s attempt to reserve broad rights did not override those statutory limits.

property

This case involves a dispute between the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers over an arbitrator's award concerning the termination of a correctional officer. The officer was fired in 1993 for alleged theft of state property, possession of illegal drugs, and other misconduct based on items seized during a police search of his apartment; criminal charges were later dismissed after the evidence was suppressed, but the arbitrator found just cause for termination under the collective bargaining agreement was lacking in part and awarded back pay and benefits while denying prejudgment interest. The Superior Court confirmed the back pay award but vacated the interest portion, prompting cross-appeals. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court order, directing entry of judgment consistent with the arbitrator's full award on grounds that the arbitrator's findings were not irrational and the award should stand.

labor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved David Higham, who was convicted by a jury in Superior Court of two counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault against his seven-year-old stepgranddaughter, consisting of acts of cunnilingus and fellatio during the summer of 2000. Higham appealed, claiming the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial after a witness mentioned discussing the incidents in counseling and by denying his motion for acquittal on the cunnilingus count due to insufficient evidence of penetration. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the counseling reference did not prejudice the defendant sufficiently to require a new trial and that cunnilingus constitutes sexual penetration under the statute without needing intrusion beyond the external genital organs.

criminal law

In State v. Lynch, the defendant appealed his jury convictions on three counts of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of second-degree sexual assault against his developmentally impaired daughter, raising multiple claims of trial error including the victim's competency to testify and evidentiary rulings on hearsay. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the trial record and applicable rules of evidence, determining that the victim demonstrated the required abilities to observe, recollect, communicate, and appreciate the need for truthfulness. The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the competency finding and analyzed exceptions under the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence for statements against penal interest and other proffered testimony. It concluded that the trial justice's decisions were proper and addressed additional issues such as the admissibility of certain witness statements.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dupre v. Dupre, divorced parents with joint legal custody and joint physical placement of their two children disputed the mother's request to relocate with the children to Huahine in French Polynesia, over 6,400 miles from the father's home in Jamestown, Rhode Island. The Family Court found the mother best served the children's emotional and physical needs but denied the relocation request for lack of a compelling reason and awarded placement to the father. The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated that judgment, holding that the Family Court had applied an incorrect legal standard. The court reasoned that neither statutes nor prior case law supported requiring a compelling reason for relocation and instead directed the lower court on remand to determine the children's best interests using established factors such as those in Pettinato v. Pettinato. The opinion emphasizes the logistical challenges of the distance and the need to balance both parents' relationships with the children.

family law

The case involved the Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee challenging a Board of Review decision that awarded unemployment benefits to a teacher terminated for alleged inappropriate conduct with female students. The director and board found the discharge occurred under non-disqualifying circumstances, relying on the lack of direct evidence beyond arbitration transcripts, which the board treated as insufficient hearsay. The District Court affirmed the benefits, deemed the appeal moot, and rejected collateral estoppel from the arbitration award. The Rhode Island Supreme Court granted certiorari and quashed the District Court judgment, determining that the lower court erred on mootness, failed to properly consider the confirmed arbitration decision for issue preclusion, and mishandled the evidentiary issues regarding the transcripts.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Gorman v. St. Raphael Academy, a student and his parents brought a breach of contract action against a private Catholic high school after officials threatened expulsion over the length of the student's hair, which violated a newly added rule in the student handbook. The Superior Court granted a permanent injunction barring the school from disciplining the student on this basis, concluding that the rule lacked a rational connection to the school's mission. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed that judgment. It held that a private school enjoys wide latitude to adopt its own rules and codes of conduct, and that the hair-length regulation constituted a lawful, enforceable term of the educational contract absent any showing that it violated law or public policy.

civil rightsreligious liberty

This case involved challenges by the owner of a commercial office building in Providence to the city's property tax assessments for tax years 1997 through 2000, claiming the assessments were excessive based on a 1987 revaluation carried forward without update. The plaintiff, Weybosset Hill, acquired the property from Blue Cross along with assigned rights to pending tax appeals, continued those appeals, and filed its own for 2000; after denials at the administrative level, it sought relief in Superior Court. The trial court found the property over-assessed for all years, awarded damages, and upheld the validity of the assignments. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the assignments were valid under precedent as they were tied to the sale of the property itself rather than creating a market in appeals, and that the trial court's valuation based on expert testimony using income and sales-comparison approaches was supported by the evidence.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between a court-appointed receiver selling contaminated commercial real estate and the buyer, AZA Realty Trust, regarding the seller's obligations for asbestos remediation under a purchase and sale agreement. The Superior Court instructed the receiver that the buyer bore responsibility for additional asbestos removal costs per the contract terms, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed. The court concluded there was neither mutual mistake nor misrepresentation because the agreement was unambiguous, the buyer had accepted the property "as is," disclaimed reliance on warranties, acknowledged receipt of environmental reports, and both parties were sophisticated with opportunities to clarify terms.

propertybusiness & regulatoryenvironment

In State v. Gomez, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder after the 1998 shooting death of Jason Gonzalez in a Rhode Island park, an incident arising from a rivalry between two gangs. Following separate trials, Gomez was convicted of conspiracy in 1999 and murder in 2001, resulting in sentences of ten years and a mandatory life term. He appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings from both trials, including the admission of character evidence about the victim and testimony regarding an adoptive admission by silence. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed both convictions, concluding that the trial court made no errors in its evidentiary decisions and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdicts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between insurance companies Travelers and Old Republic over responsibility for prejudgment interest in an underlying automobile negligence lawsuit filed by an injured plaintiff against multiple defendants, including their insureds. After a jury verdict and initial judgment that included interest, the parties settled the case while an appeal was pending, with Travelers paying the full settlement amount and Old Republic reimbursing only its $500,000 policy limit. Travelers then sued for a declaratory judgment seeking to hold Old Republic liable for the interest portion. The court affirmed summary judgment for Old Republic, holding that prejudgment interest does not accrue absent a final judgment or party agreement, and the pre-appeal settlement waived any such claims. The decision rested on the principle that settlement before a judgment becomes final precludes imposition of prejudgment interest.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Keystone Elevator Company sued Johnson & Wales University and its general contractor Agostini Construction over unpaid amounts for elevator installation work on a university dormitory, filing a mechanics' lien petition and contract claims seeking roughly $45,000 plus fees. After a bench trial, the Superior Court awarded Keystone $11,705 on the merits as the prevailing party and granted it $12,383 in attorneys' fees under the mechanics' lien statute, rejecting the defendants' arguments that no lis pendens had been filed and that Keystone had not prevailed. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bond posted by the defendants eliminated any lis pendens requirement, that Keystone qualified as the prevailing party despite setoffs and partial defenses, that the fee request procedure was adequate, and that the fee amount was not excessive relative to the recovery. The court reasoned that the statute's text and prior precedent supported the trial court's discretion on fees and prevailing-party status, and it construed the defendants' reconsideration motion as one under Rule 60(b) without finding abuse of discretion.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Johnston v. Poulin, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries he sustained when a horse owned by the defendants escaped its enclosure after a tree branch damaged the fence and later kicked him in the head while being secured in his barn. The plaintiff alleged strict liability under G.L. 1956 § 4-14-1, which imposes liability on owners for damages caused by horses and other enumerated animals permitted to run at large. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the strict-liability claim. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the horse was still at large or had been brought under effective control at the time of the injury, making summary judgment inappropriate.

torts & liability

This case involved New England Gas Company's request to the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission to keep confidential certain documents detailing expenses and unpaid amounts from a labor dispute with a union, submitted as part of a rate application under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA). The PUC denied confidentiality for two data requests after finding the information did not qualify for APRA exemptions related to trade secrets, litigation materials, or labor negotiations, and the company had not timely objected to the requests' relevance. New England Gas appealed, arguing for application of a balancing test and exemption from disclosure. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the PUC's order, holding that APRA provides no remedy to prevent disclosure by public agencies and embodies a strong policy favoring public access to governmental records.

business & regulatorylabor & employment