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

2026It is a super interesting issue, frankly.” The trial justice entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on December 10, 2024, and plaintiff timely appealed. -7- II 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)).

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)).

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)).

2020Standard of Review “It is well settled that we review a trial justice’s decision admitting or excluding evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Clements, 83 A.3d at 561 (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454, 465 (R.I. 2013)).

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)).

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)).

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)).

2023“When reviewing a hearing justice’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Gianfrancesco, 112 A.3d at 708 (quoting New England Stone, LLC v. Conte, 962 A.2d 30, 32 (R.I. 2009)).

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)).

2026It is a super interesting issue, frankly.” The trial justice entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on December 10, 2024, and plaintiff timely appealed. -7- II 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)).

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)).

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

2025On appeal, we employ the same abuse-of-discretion standard as recited above; “the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial justice, and this Court will not interfere with the trial justice’s decision unless a clear abuse of discretion is apparent.” Perry, 182 A.3d at 571 (brackets omitted) (quoting Rainey, 175 A.3d at 1187).

2025On appeal, we employ the same abuse-of-discretion standard as recited above; “the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial justice, and this Court will not interfere with the trial justice’s decision unless a clear abuse of discretion is apparent.” Perry, 182 A.3d at 571 (brackets omitted) (quoting Rainey, 175 A.3d at 1187 ).

2024“In the absence of a legitimate and articulable equitable defense, specific performance is an available remedy when a purchaser of real estate under a written contract demonstrates that he or she was at all times ready and willing to perform the contract.” Id. at 572 (quoting Bucklin v. Morelli, 912 A.2d 931, 936 (R.I. 2007)). -8- “The remedy of specific performance is not available ‘as a matter of right[,]’ but rather ‘rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.’” Bennett, 300 A.3d at 572 (quoting Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008)). “[T]his Court will not dist

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 ).

2024“In the absence of a legitimate and articulable equitable defense, specific performance is an available remedy when a purchaser of real estate under a written contract demonstrates that he or she was at all times ready and willing to perform the contract.” Id. at 572 (quoting Bucklin v. Morelli, 912 A.2d 931, 936 (R.I. 2007)). -8- “The remedy of specific performance is not available ‘as a matter of right[,]’ but rather ‘rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.’” Bennett, 300 A.3d at 572 (quoting Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008)). “[T]his Court will not dist

2024“In the absence of a legitimate and articulable equitable defense, specific performance is an available remedy when a purchaser of real estate under a written contract demonstrates that he or she was at all times ready and willing to perform the contract.” Id. at 572 (quoting Bucklin v. Morelli, 912 A.2d 931, 936 (R.I. 2007)). -8- “The remedy of specific performance is not available ‘as a matter of right[,]’ but rather ‘rests within the sound discretion of the [hearing] justice.’” Bennett, 300 A.3d at 572 (quoting Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 251 (R.I. 2008)). “[T]his Court will not dist

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).

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.”).

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

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 ).

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).