Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a crime of violence. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal because the the State produced sufficient evidence at trial from which a jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant possessed the handgun; and (2) the trial justice did not violate Defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel by restricting defense counsel’s closing argument. View "State v. Ferrer" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree robbery in connection with two armed robberies. Defendant filed several motions to suppress evidence obtained by police detectives following his arrest. A hearing justice granted Defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence under the exclusionary rule to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the evidence was gathered after an “illegal” extra-jurisdictional arrest. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court, holding (1) the detectives’ actions in arresting Defendant outside their jurisdiction were in excess of their authority; but (2) the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment did not mandate the suppression of the evidence obtained in this case. View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant filed a pro se application for postconviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Appellant also filed a motion to appoint counsel. Counsel was appointed to investigate Appellant’s postconviction-relief claims in light of the Court’s holding in Shatney v. State. Counsel subsequently filed a Shatney report and requested that the court permit her to withdraw her appearance on Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court allowed counsel to withdraw from the case, and Appellant proceeded pro se on his postconviction relief claims. Following a hearing, the trial justice denied and dismissed Appellant’s application for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the trial justice did not follow the appropriate procedure mandated by Shatney by not allowing Appellant an opportunity to be heard on the merits of his application before allowing the appointed attorney to withdraw. Remanded with directions to appoint counsel to Appellant in accordance with section R.I. Gen. Laws 10-9.1-5 for investigation and, if appropriate, litigation of Appellant’s allegations. View "Ramirez v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, school committees of Woonsocket and Pawtucket and unnamed students, parents, and the superintendents from both districts, brought suit against the legislative and executive branches of Rhode Island’s state government challenging the state’s school funding formula. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Education Clause as well as violations of their substantive due process and equal protection rights because the formula failed to allocate adequate resources to less affluent communities. The superior court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) prior case law as well as the separation of powers doctrine warranted dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Education Clause claim; and (2) Plaintiffs’ complaint was insufficient to establish potential substantive due process claims. View "Woonsocket Sch. Comm. v. Chafee " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other crimes arising out of a shooting outside of a nightclub. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the trial justice did not err when he denied a motion to suppress out-of-court and in-court identifications, as the photographic array displayed to the witness was not unnecessarily suggestive; and (2) the trial justice did not err when he permitted the state to use peremptory challenges to African-American prospective jurors, as the challenges did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. View "State v. Gallop" on Justia Law

In 2009, three men attacked and robbed Complainant. Several days later, Complainant saw one of his attackers loitering on the street. After a foot chase, Complainant caught the attacker - Michael Long - and held him until the police arrived. Upon his arrest, Long implicated Defendant in the crime. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) Defendant waived his double jeopardy challenge; (2) the trial justice did not abuse her discretion by admitting Long’s prior police statement as a prior inconsistent statement, and the use of Long’s prior police statements as prior inconsistent statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause; (3) any use of leading questions posed to Long by the prosecutor was harmless; (4) the trial justice did not err by admitting Long’s statements to his former finacee in the presence of Defendant as adoptive admissions; and (5) the trial justice did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with ten offenses in a single indictment. After five of the counts were dismissed, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the five remaining counts of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and reckless driving, among other crimes. The trial justice sentenced Defendant to life for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err when he did not grant Defendant’s motion to sever the counts relating to the murder/robbery from the counts relating to the police chase; (2) did not err by not granting Defendant’s motion to sever certain offenses committed on one date from offenses committed on another date; (3) did not violate Defendant’s right to a fair trial when he refused to allow a police artist’s sketch into evidence; (4) did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion to exclude three autopsy photographs from evidence; and (5) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

In the town of Tiverton, two police officers from the Little Compton police department had a discussion with Defendant about a motor-vehicle accident that occurred in Little Compton. The officers then transported Defendant in a police cruiser back to the scene of the accident, where they administered field-sobriety tests, which Defendant failed. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, among other offenses. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss due to an unlawful arrest, arguing that the officers lacked the authority to arrest him in Tiverton. The trial judge concluded that the arrest was unlawful and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the district court, holding that Defendant was not arrested by the Little Compton police while they were in Tiverton, and therefore, the trial judge erred when she granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Town of Little Compton v. Simmons" on Justia Law