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

The case involved the State of Rhode Island appealing a Family Court decision that dismissed criminal charges against David Fritz for failing to pay child support after his parental rights to his two children had been terminated. The Supreme Court held that the termination of parental rights does not automatically terminate a parent's obligation to pay child support under Rhode Island law. The court reasoned that the relevant statutes on termination of parental rights address only the parent's rights regarding the child and do not affect the child's right to support, leading to vacating the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings on whether the non-payment was willful and if the prosecution was selective.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved a dispute over a parking easement reserved in a 1992 quitclaim deed from HCM Restaurant, Inc. to Bluff Head Corporation for lot No. 434-2 in Little Compton, Rhode Island, which benefited patrons of an adjacent marina later acquired by Sakonnet Point Marina Association. Sakonnet Point sued for specific performance and injunctive relief after Bluff Head refused access to the lot for parking, while Harbor Point Properties, owner of the neighboring lot No. 434-1, intervened seeking a declaratory judgment. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to Sakonnet Point and Harbor Point, holding that the easement could only burden lot No. 434-2 because HCM did not own lot No. 434-1 at the time of conveyance, and it ordered Bluff Head to provide space for 21 vehicles on that lot after approving an engineer's plan. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the deed's language created the easement solely over the conveyed premises and that Bluff Head had failed to designate a suitable location as permitted by the deed, justifying court implementation of the parking plan.

property

In State v. Feole, the defendant was convicted of solicitation of murder after evidence showed he repeatedly asked an acquaintance to kill witnesses from a prior case, supplied a gun and payment, and discussed timing tied to his motion for a new trial, with the testimony corroborated by recordings, police officers, and other evidence. After both sides rested, the trial justice granted the defendant's motion to reopen so he could testify, but conditioned it on the defendant giving a narrative statement without direct questioning by his attorney. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that this limitation did not violate the defendant's right to counsel because the trial justice had discretion over reopening the case and any restriction was limited rather than a complete deprivation of counsel. The court reasoned that the defendant had already received effective representation and chose to testify against his attorney's advice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Peter Apalakis's appeal from a conviction for possession of a controlled substance (MDMA) with intent to deliver after police executed a search warrant at his apartment, found drugs, and obtained incriminating statements from him during the search. Apalakis moved to suppress the statements and evidence, arguing that police failed to give Miranda warnings, made coercive threats or promises, and that the questioning rendered his statements involuntary. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing, finding the warrant valid and the statements voluntary, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that under the totality of circumstances—including the brief duration of questioning, administration of Miranda rights, and lack of improper promises or threats—the officers' conduct did not render the statements involuntary or violate constitutional protections against unreasonable seizure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Ralph Sweet against Pace Membership Warehouse after Sweet was struck by a forklift at Pace's store while shopping for supplies. Pace conceded liability, so the trial focused solely on damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost income claimed through November 1997. The jury awarded Sweet over $162,000 in damages plus interest. On appeal, Pace challenged the trial court's exclusion of videotape evidence showing Sweet engaging in physical activities after the damages cutoff date, as well as the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the lost-income claim and claims of improper closing arguments. The Rhode Island Supreme Court sustained the appeal, holding that the trial justice abused discretion by excluding the post-1997 evidence, which was relevant to impeach Sweet's claims of permanent injury during the claimed period and was not barred by evidence rules on character, collateral issues, or undue prejudice.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The plaintiff, Joseph Roe, sued various state and church-related defendants for physical, emotional, and sexual abuse he allegedly suffered as a minor in state custody at the Saint Aloysius Home. A Superior Court justice granted summary judgment to the defendants on the personal injury claims, finding that the three-year statute of limitations had expired. Roe appealed, arguing that the limitations period was tolled under G.L. 1956 § 9-1-19 because he had been of "unsound mind" due to repressed memories of the abuse and related difficulties. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that "unsound mind" for tolling purposes requires an inability to manage one's day-to-day activities, a standard not met by the plaintiff's evidence of transient inability to recall or address the abuse. The contract claims against St. Aloysius remain pending in Superior Court.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the Town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island, had authority to enact an ordinance restricting or banning smoking in local restaurants and bars, prompted by a state health department alert on secondhand smoke risks. Several restaurants and a hospitality association sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the town lacked power under its home rule charter, that the ordinance effectively imposed an unreasonable burden, and that it conflicted with or was preempted by state law on victualing and liquor licenses. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to the town, holding that municipalities possess implied authority under the home rule amendment and specific statutes (G.L. §§ 5-24-1, 3-1-5, 3-5-15, 3-5-21) to impose reasonable conditions on such licenses, and that the General Assembly had not occupied the field or preempted local smoking regulations. The court rejected preemption claims, noting the state's minimum standards in areas like schools did not bar stricter local rules for licensed establishments.

business & regulatory

The case involved Joseph Boillard's convictions on six counts of first-degree child molestation, one count of second-degree child molestation, and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon against his former girlfriend's children, based on incidents occurring between 1987 and 1992. Boillard appealed, claiming the trial court erred in overruling objections to the state's closing arguments, in permitting leading questions during direct examination of a child witness, and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the assault charge. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the objections to closing arguments were preserved but did not merit reversal, that leading questions were appropriate given the young age and reluctance of the witness, and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Efrain Otero's appeal of his convictions for first-degree murder and carrying a pistol without a license after shooting Teodoro Lara in a Providence bar. The defendant claimed the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing he acted in self-defense during a struggle over the gun. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding that eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and other proof supported the jury's verdict that the defendant was the aggressor who deliberately shot the victim, and that the trial justice correctly denied motions for acquittal and a new trial based on the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence.

criminal lawguns

The case involved a commercial dispute between Purvis Systems, Inc. and American Systems Corp. over the terms of a subcontract for services under a Navy contract, which was submitted to arbitration per the parties' agreement. The arbitrator initially awarded costs to the prevailing party ASC but later modified the award to include reasonable attorney's fees as part of the 'expenses of the arbitration' that the losing party Purvis was required to pay under the contract. The Superior Court vacated the modified and supplemental awards on grounds that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law and contract terms. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arbitrator acted within his authority to interpret the contract and resolve factual disputes about any stipulations, and that the strong policy favoring finality of arbitration awards precluded vacating the decisions absent clear excess of powers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether Delta Airlines and U.S. Airways could be assessed municipal property taxes by the City of Warwick on leasehold improvements they installed at the Sundlun Terminal of T.F. Green Airport. The airlines leased space from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), a state-created entity that holds a long-term lease from the state, which owns the airport; under the leases, the improvements became RIAC property upon installation. The airlines challenged the assessments, arguing that the terminal and improvements were exempt from taxation under statutes applicable to RIAC and state-owned property. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the tax assessor, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed on de novo review, holding that the property retained its exempt status and that the airlines, as lessees, were not liable for taxes on it. The court reasoned that the relevant tax-exemption statutes applied regardless of the lease arrangement, that no taxable event occurred, and that common-law rules allocating tax burdens between tenants and remaindermen did not create taxing authority over exempt property.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a boundary dispute between neighboring landowners in Jamestown, Rhode Island, over a roughly 46-foot-wide strip of land. Dupee claimed ownership of the disputed parcel through a warranty deed, a quitclaim deed, and adverse possession, while the Carnevales and Rodrigues asserted title based on later subdivision plans and quitclaim deeds from a common predecessor in interest. The Superior Court entered judgment for the Carnevales and Rodrigues and denied Dupee’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the trial court had failed to make required findings of fact on Dupee’s adverse-possession claim despite evidence of long-term use and enclosure of the land.

property

In State v. Hanes, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and carrying a handgun without a license after fatally shooting Jamel Palmer outside a Providence nightclub following a confrontation that involved conflicting accounts of who initiated physical contact and whether threats or weapons were involved. The defendant argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that he could not rely on self-defense if he had provoked the deadly confrontation and by excluding cross-examination testimony from the medical examiner about the victim's possible body position based on bullet trajectory. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury instruction accurately reflected state law barring self-defense for an aggressor in a deadly encounter and that the proposed medical examiner testimony lacked a factual basis in the record and amounted to speculation. The court further noted that the trial justice properly exercised discretion in limiting expert opinions under evidentiary rules requiring disclosed facts to support conclusions.

criminal lawguns

This case involved a dispute between the owner of a mobile home park and a tenant who had no written lease and was treated as a month-to-month holdover tenant. The park owner sought to evict the tenant for unauthorized renovations, offensive language, and other conduct not listed in the Rhode Island Mobile and Manufactured Homes Statute, while also raising a constitutional challenge to the statute's eviction restrictions; the tenant counterclaimed for malicious prosecution and reprisal, and raised issues about illegal fees and improper rent-increase notices. The Superior Court denied the eviction and the constitutional claim, and granted the tenant's counterclaims. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court examined whether G.L. 1956 § 31-44-2 limits the grounds for terminating a mobile-home tenancy to the six enumerated reasons in the statute even for month-to-month tenants, and addressed related notice and procedural requirements under the mobile-home act.

propertybusiness & regulatory