abuse of discretion standard in Rhode Island

2017Specifically, defendant takes issue with the admission of testimony of defendant’s grandfather regarding his home confinement, “evidence regarding the shooting of Gary Ellerbe, [defendant's alleged possession of a gun at * * * Anderson’s house, and * * * Burrell’s description of how “we do a robbery.’ ” A Standard of Review “[I]t is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454, 465 (R.I. 2013) (quoting State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I. 2012)).

2015It is well settled that this Court will “review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 862 (R.I.2013) (quoting State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I.2012)).

2012II Standard of Review Under G.L.1956 § 9-24-7, an order granting a preliminary injunction may be appealed directly to this Court. 10 “[B]e-cause the decision to grant * * * a preliminary injunction ‘rests within the sound discretion of the hearing justice,’ we review that decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” Town of Coventry v. Baird Properties, LLC, 13 A.3d 614, 620 (R.I.2011) (quoting Iggy’s Doughboys, Inc. v. Giroux, 729 A.2d 701, 705 (R.I.1999)).

2012II Standard of Review Under G.L. 1956 § 9-24-7, an order granting a preliminary injunction may be appealed directly to this Court. 10 “[B]ecause the decision to grant * * * a preliminary injunction ‘rests 9 While this appeal has been pending, DLM, Inc. sold the property, after authorization from the trial justice, and deposited approximately 1.4 million dollars in the Superior Court Registry. 10 General Laws 1956 § 9-24-7 provides, in pertinent part: “Whenever, upon a hearing in the [S]uperior [C]ourt, an injunction shall be granted or continued, or a receiver appointed, or a sale of real or p

2013Rule 403 states that relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice * * It "is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I.2012) (quoting State v. Marmolejos, 990 A.2d 848, 851 (R.I.2010)).

2013Standard of Review “[I]t ‘is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I.2012) (quoting State v. Marmolejos, 990 A.2d 848, 851 (R.I.2010)).

2011Additionally, Newport identifies five errors of law that it submits the trial justice committed when she granted plaintiffs petition: (1) the determination that the state identified “newly discovered evidence”; (2) the finding that plaintiff was not negligent in discovery of the evidence; (3) the finding that plaintiff was prejudiced by Newport’s failure to serve the state with its motion for summary judgment; (4) the grant of the petition despite plaintiffs failure to file the petition “within a reasonable time”; and (5) the denial of Newport’s “right to conduct discovery.” III Standard of Re

2008"It is well settled that motions to vacate a judgment are left to the sound discretion of the motion justice and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion or error of law is shown." Labossiere v. Berstein, 810 A.2d 210 , 213 (R.I. 2002 ) (per curiam).

2026Exclusion of Testimony This Court “review[s] a challenge to a trial justice’s limitation on cross-examination under an abuse of discretion standard, and we will not disturb the exercise of that discretion absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 862 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Chum, 54 A.3d at 460 ).

2015It is well settled that this Court will “review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 862 (R.I.2013) (quoting State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I.2012)).

2021“We will reverse a trial ju st ice’s ru ling on t he admissibility of evidence only where ‘it constitutes a clear abuse of discret ion.’” State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 862 (R.I. 2013) (quoting State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I. 2012)); see State v. Smith, 39 A.3d 669, 673 (R.I. 2012).

2013We will reverse a trial justice’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence only where "it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.” Id.; see also State v. Covington, 69 A.3d 855, 862 (R.I.2013); State v. Smith, 39 A.3d 669, 673 (R.I.2012).

2015Furthermore, it is well settled that we will not hold that a trial justice has “abused his or her discretion as long as some grounds supporting his or her decision appear in the record.” State v. Evans, 742 A.2d 715, 719 (R.I.1999); see Thomas, 936 A.2d at 1283 (“Although [the abuse of discretion standard] is a stringent test, our jurisprudence illustrates that it does not insulate every ruling made by a trial justice.”).

2012Furthermore, it “is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Marmolejos, 990 A.2d 848, 851 (R.I.2010) (citing State v. Reyes, 984 A.2d 606, 614-15 (R.I.2009); State v. Evans, 742 A.2d 715, 719 (R.I.1999)).

2011Additionally, Newport identifies five errors of law that it submits the trial justice committed when she granted plaintiffs petition: (1) the determination that the state identified “newly discovered evidence”; (2) the finding that plaintiff was not negligent in discovery of the evidence; (3) the finding that plaintiff was prejudiced by Newport’s failure to serve the state with its motion for summary judgment; (4) the grant of the petition despite plaintiffs failure to file the petition “within a reasonable time”; and (5) the denial of Newport’s “right to conduct discovery.” III Standard of Re

2008Standard of Review “Motions to vacate a decree, much like motions to vacate a judgment, are ‘left to the sound discretion of the motion justice and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion or error of law is shown.’ ” Pleasant Management I, 870 A.2d at 445 (quoting Labossiere v. *222 Berstein, 810 A.2d 210, 213 (R.I.2002)); see Pate v. Pate, 97 R.I. 183, 188 , 196 A.2d 723, 726 (1964) (“motions made pursuant to [§ 9-21-2] are addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court, and unless it appears that the trial justice abused his discretion or made his determination

2024“When reviewing a hearing justice’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Id. (quoting New England Stone, LLC v. Conte, 962 A.2d 30, 32 (R.I. 2009)).

2015II Standard of Review Although the grant of a preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order, a direct appeal to this Court is permissible pursuant to G.L.1956 § 9-24-7. 6 “When reviewing a hearing justice’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard of review.” New England Stone, LLC v. Conte, 962 A.2d 30, 32 (R.I.2009).

2024We have also stated that “we will reverse a trial justice’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence only where it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting State v. Clements, 83 A.3d 553, 561 (R.I. 2014)). - 13 - Discussion Voluntary Manslaughter Instruction On appeal, defendant argues that the trial justice committed reversible error by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter.

2023Standard of Review “It is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Bozzo, 223 A.3d 755 , 765 (R.I. 2020) (quoting State v. Clements, 83 A.3d 553, 561 (R.I. 2014)).

2023The defendant thereafter timely appealed. -7- Standard of Review “It is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Husband, 162 A.3d 646, 655 (R.I. 2017) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454, 465 (R.I. 2013)).

2017Specifically, defendant takes issue with the admission of testimony of defendant’s grandfather regarding his home confinement, “evidence regarding the shooting of Gary Ellerbe, [defendant's alleged possession of a gun at * * * Anderson’s house, and * * * Burrell’s description of how “we do a robbery.’ ” A Standard of Review “[I]t is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454, 465 (R.I. 2013) (quoting State v. Brown, 42 A.3d 1239, 1242 (R.I. 2012)).

2023The defendant thereafter timely appealed. -7- Standard of Review “It is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Husband, 162 A.3d 646, 655 (R.I. 2017) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454, 465 (R.I. 2013)).

2018State v. Anthony , 422 A.2d 921 , 924 (R.I. 1980) ; see also State v. Husband , 162 A.3d 646 , 655 (R.I. 2017) ("[I]t is well settled that [this Court] review[s] a trial justice's decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.") (internal quotation marks omitted).

2016See In re Briggs, 62 A.3d 1090, 1097 (R.I.2013) (“this Court reviews a trial justice’s decision to award or deny Rule 11 sanctions under an abuse-of-discretion standard”).

2014In addition, “this Court reviews a trial justice’s decision to award or deny Rule 11 sanctions under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” In re Briggs, 62 A.3d 1090, 1097 (R.I.2013).

2006Id. (“We will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling in this regard absent an abuse of discretion.”); State v. Rocha, 834 A.2d 1263, 1266 (R.I.2003) (“This Court uses an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial justice’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence of previous bad acts, convictions, or character.”); State v. Werner, 831 A.2d 183, 204 (R.I.2003) (“There is no question that the standard used by this Court in reviewing a trial justice’s ruling to admit or exclude [evidence of a witness’s prior convictions] is one of abuse of discretion.* * * The standard of abuse' of discreti

2006In construing Rule 609 * * * the trial justice has broad discretion.”); see also State v. Rocha, 834 A.2d 1263, 1266 (R.I.2003) (“This Court uses an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial justice’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence of previous bad acts, convictions, or character.”).

2005II Discussion The remedy of specific performance is not a right, but instead “rests within the sound discretion of the trial justice.” Thompson v. McCann, 762 A.2d 432, 436 (R.I.2000) (quoting Eastern Motor Inns, Inc. v. Ricci, 565 A.2d 1265, 1269 (R.I.1989)). “[TJhis Court will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Id. “[T]he essential terms of the contract must be clear, definite, certain, and complete” before a court can properly award specific performance of a real estate contract.

2005II Discussion The remedy of specific performance is not a right, but instead “rests within the sound discretion of the trial justice.” Thompson v. McCann, 762 A.2d 432, 436 (R.I.2000) (quoting Eastern Motor Inns, Inc. v. Ricci, 565 A.2d 1265, 1269 (R.I.1989)). “[TJhis Court will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Id. “[T]he essential terms of the contract must be clear, definite, certain, and complete” before a court can properly award specific performance of a real estate contract.

2023The remedy of specific performance is not available “as a matter of right[,]” but rather “rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.” Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008). “[T]his Court will not disturb a [hearing] justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the [hearing] justice.” Lajayi v. Fafiyebi, 860 A.2d 680, 686 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Thompson, 762 A.2d at 436 ).

2023The remedy of specific performance is not available “as a matter of right[,]” but rather “rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.” Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008). “[T]his Court will not disturb a [hearing] justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the [hearing] justice.” Lajayi v. Fafiyebi, 860 A.2d 680, 686 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Thompson, 762 A.2d at 436 ).

2012“When reviewing a trial justice’s decision to admit or preclude certain evidence, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard, granting the trial justice wide latitude to determine both the relevance and the admissibility of evidence.” Id. at 282 (citing Accetta, 962 A.2d at 60 ).

2012“When reviewing a trial justice’s decision to admit or preclude certain evidence, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard, granting the trial justice wide latitude to determine both the relevance and the admissibility of evidence.” Id. at 282 (citing Accetta, 962 A.2d at 60 ).

2024Rainey, 175 A.3d at 1182 (“When the issue before us concerns a trial justice’s decision to either admit or exclude evidence, we examine that issue under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”).

2024Rainey, 175 A.3d at 1182 (“When the issue before us concerns a trial justice’s decision to either admit or exclude evidence, we examine that issue under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”).

2012II Standard of Review Under G.L.1956 § 9-24-7, an order granting a preliminary injunction may be appealed directly to this Court. 10 “[B]e-cause the decision to grant * * * a preliminary injunction ‘rests within the sound discretion of the hearing justice,’ we review that decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” Town of Coventry v. Baird Properties, LLC, 13 A.3d 614, 620 (R.I.2011) (quoting Iggy’s Doughboys, Inc. v. Giroux, 729 A.2d 701, 705 (R.I.1999)).

2012II Standard of Review Under G.L. 1956 § 9-24-7, an order granting a preliminary injunction may be appealed directly to this Court. 10 “[B]ecause the decision to grant * * * a preliminary injunction ‘rests 9 While this appeal has been pending, DLM, Inc. sold the property, after authorization from the trial justice, and deposited approximately 1.4 million dollars in the Superior Court Registry. 10 General Laws 1956 § 9-24-7 provides, in pertinent part: “Whenever, upon a hearing in the [S]uperior [C]ourt, an injunction shall be granted or continued, or a receiver appointed, or a sale of real or p

2018Therefore, "[t]he ruling of the trial justice * * * is accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong." Dubois , 36 A.3d at 197 (quoting Barkmeyer , 949 A.2d at 1007 ).

2013We will reverse a trial justice’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence only where “it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.” Id.; see also State v. Smith, 39 A.3d 669, 673 (R.I.2012); State v. Dubois, 36 A.3d 191, 199 (R.I.2012).

2014McManus, 990 A.2d at 1234 .

2012State v. Peoples, 996 A.2d 660, 664 (R.I.2010); State v. McManus, 990 A.2d 1229, 1234 (R.I.2010).

2025See State v. Werner, 831 A.2d 183, 204 (R.I. 2003) (“The standard of abuse of discretion is one that gives extreme deference to the trial justice’s determination.

2006Id. (“We will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling in this regard absent an abuse of discretion.”); State v. Rocha, 834 A.2d 1263, 1266 (R.I.2003) (“This Court uses an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial justice’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence of previous bad acts, convictions, or character.”); State v. Werner, 831 A.2d 183, 204 (R.I.2003) (“There is no question that the standard used by this Court in reviewing a trial justice’s ruling to admit or exclude [evidence of a witness’s prior convictions] is one of abuse of discretion.* * * The standard of abuse' of discreti

2025“In situations in which the trial justice does not totally prevent or completely prohibit the defendant from exploring the issues of motive, bias, or prejudice of the witness, we employ an abuse-of-discretion standard on review.” State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1122 (R.I. 2005).

2025“In situations in which the trial justice does not totally prevent or completely prohibit the defendant from exploring the issues of motive, bias, or prejudice of the witness, we employ an abuse-of-discretion standard on review.” State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1122 (R.I. 2005).

2024“Cumulative evidence is evidence that tends ‘to prove the same point to which other evidence has been offered.’” White, 296 A.3d at 706 (quoting State v. Benitez, 266 A.3d 1221 , 1229 (R.I. 2022)); see also State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172, 189 (R.I. 2014).

2024“Cumulative evidence is evidence that tends ‘to prove the same point to which other evidence has been offered.’” White, 296 A.3d at 706 (quoting State v. Benitez, 266 A.3d 1221 , 1229 (R.I. 2022)); see also State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172, 189 (R.I. 2014).

2023That said, “[t]hough we are mindful that our review is a deferential one, it ‘cannot be equated with no review at all.’” Sloat v. City of Newport ex rel. - 28 - Sitrin, 19 A.3d 1217, 1224 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Pleasant Management, LLC v. Carrasco, 870 A.2d 443, 445 (R.I. 2005)).

2023That said, “[t]hough we are mindful that our review is a deferential one, it ‘cannot be equated with no review at all.’” Sloat v. City of Newport ex rel. - 28 - Sitrin, 19 A.3d 1217, 1224 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Pleasant Management, LLC v. Carrasco, 870 A.2d 443, 445 (R.I. 2005)).

2023The remedy of specific performance is not available “as a matter of right[,]” but rather “rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.” Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008). “[T]his Court will not disturb a [hearing] justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the [hearing] justice.” Lajayi v. Fafiyebi, 860 A.2d 680, 686 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Thompson, 762 A.2d at 436 ).

2023The remedy of specific performance is not available “as a matter of right[,]” but rather “rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.” Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008). “[T]his Court will not disturb a [hearing] justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the [hearing] justice.” Lajayi v. Fafiyebi, 860 A.2d 680, 686 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Thompson, 762 A.2d at 436 ).

2023The remedy of specific performance is not available “as a matter of right[,]” but rather “rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.” Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008). “[T]his Court will not disturb a [hearing] justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the [hearing] justice.” Lajayi v. Fafiyebi, 860 A.2d 680, 686 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Thompson, 762 A.2d at 436 ).

2023The remedy of specific performance is not available “as a matter of right[,]” but rather “rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.” Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008). “[T]his Court will not disturb a [hearing] justice’s ruling on a specific performance claim unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the [hearing] justice.” Lajayi v. Fafiyebi, 860 A.2d 680, 686 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Thompson, 762 A.2d at 436 ).