Victoria Lederberg

The case involved Robert Dyer appealing his conviction for one count of burglary and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon after he allegedly entered his estranged wife's home at night and attacked her with a knife and hammer. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and denied the appeal, holding that the trial justice did not abuse discretion by sustaining an objection to cross-examination questions about a child's absence as a witness and by allowing related redirect testimony. The court further ruled that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the state, was sufficient to support the jury's findings on the burglary and assault counts, thereby upholding the denial of the motions for a new trial and judgment of acquittal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether David and Kathy Mignacca could keep a miniature horse on their residential lot in the Ridgewood Estates subdivision despite a restrictive covenant titled 'Livestock and Poultry' and a city zoning code requiring ten acres for keeping animals. The homeowners association sued to enforce the covenant and appealed a zoning variance granted by the Cranston Zoning Board of Review; the Superior Court consolidated the matters, declined to enforce the covenant, and remanded the zoning issue after finding an alternative ordinance permitted the horse. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the covenant ruling, sustained the appeal, and granted certiorari to quash the variance, holding that covenant 8 barred the horse and that the zoning board had failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision.

property

In State v. Chalk, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault and child molestation involving three minor victims, all connected to his roles as a scoutmaster and residential counselor. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of motions for mistrial or continuance after the late disclosure of additional records from a group home that could have been used to impeach one victim's testimony, the admission of evidence of an uncharged prior sexual act under Rule 404(b), and the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court addressed due process claims arising from the delayed production of documents, noting that the defendant had not properly requested the records via a Rule 17(c) subpoena but instead through a general motion for exculpatory evidence, and that he had already received substantial materials pretrial. It further explained that the newly discovered information about the victim's juvenile record could still be used in cross-examination and that the uncharged act was admissible to show the defendant's lewd disposition toward one victim. The opinion reviewed these procedural and evidentiary rulings without granting relief on the appealed issues.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a landlord, Pier House Inn, Inc., and its tenant, 421 Corporation, Inc., over a commercial lease for restaurant facilities in Rhode Island, which included claims for unpaid rent and breach of contract. The parties' lease required arbitration, resulting in an award that included $150,000 in punitive damages to the tenant; the Superior Court vacated the punitive damages portion as unauthorized under Rhode Island law and remanded it to the arbitrator for clarification. The arbitrator clarified that the award was intended as compensatory damages for actual losses, and the Superior Court confirmed the modified award. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that courts have the authority under arbitration statutes to remand awards for clarification and to modify them to effect the arbitrator's intent when the original award was unclear or exceeded powers regarding punitive damages.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved three defendants appealing their convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder after a stabbing death outside a Providence nightclub in 1997. The Rhode Island Supreme Court denied the appeals of two defendants and affirmed their convictions on both counts, while affirming the third defendant's conspiracy conviction but vacating his murder conviction. The court reasoned that the trial justice did not err in limiting opening statements to expected evidence from the defense case, denying severance motions, or handling other procedural claims, though it split evenly on whether the state could retry the third defendant on a vicarious liability theory for murder after the trial court had granted acquittal on aiding and abetting.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a 1999 state law authorizing the Town of Middletown to charge sewer users for debt service and capital costs of the sewer system required approval by town referendum under the Rhode Island Constitution's home-rule provisions. Newport Court Club Associates, a commercial property owner, sued the town council and state, seeking to enjoin collection of the 1999-2000 sewer fees and a declaratory judgment that the statute and budget were unconstitutional on home-rule, due process, equal protection, and delegation grounds. The Superior Court denied relief, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the General Assembly's specific authorization under Article 13 did not trigger the referendum requirement for taxes or expenditures because it was enabling legislation consistent with sections 4 and 5, as interpreted in prior cases like Warwick Mall Trust. The Court rejected the constitutional challenges after examining the interplay between home-rule powers and legislative authority over municipal finances.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory