raise-or-waive rule in Rhode Island

2012We have recognized an exception to the raise or waive rule in the context of basic constitutional rights when "the alleged error [was] more than harmless, and the exception * * * implicate[s] an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel at the time of trial.” State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50, 57 (R.I.2001); see also State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283 , 1289 n. 7 (R.I.2011).

2012Although, on occasion, we have “recognized a narrow exception to the raise or waive rule,” State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305, 311 (R.I.2008), to qualify for this relief “the alleged error must be more than harmless, and the exception must implicate an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel at the time of trial.” Id. at 312 (quoting State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50, 57 (R.I.2001)).

2006Although we have recognized a narrow exception to the raise-or-waive rule when “basic constitutional rights are concerned,” State v. Mastracchio, 672 A.2d 438, 446 (R.I.1996), the defendant’s assertion does not meet the strict requirements of that exception.

2006“Although we have recognized a narrow exception to the raise-or-waive rule when ‘basic constitutional rights are concerned,’ * * * the defendant’s assertion does not meet the strict requirements of that exception.” Id. (quoting State v. Mastracchio, 672 A.2d 438, 446 (R.I.1996)).

2025“As we have said on innumerable occasions, ‘a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.’” Id. at 172 (quoting State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822, 829 (R.I. 2008)).

2024See, e.g., In re Shy C., 126 A.3d 433 , 434 (R.I. 2015) (“This Court has long adhered to an important jurisprudential principle commonly referred to as ‘the raise or waive rule.’”); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Malinou, 101 A.3d 860, 865 (R.I. 2014) (“According to this Court’s well settled raise-or-waive rule, issues not properly presented before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”) (emphasis added); State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I. 2011) (“This Court staunchly adheres to the ‘raise or waive’ rule, which requires parties to raise an issue fir

2024“Accordingly, pursuant to one of our most well-established principles (the raise or waive rule), [this] argument[] will not be considered by us.” Decathlon Investments v. Medeiros, 252 A.3d 268 , 270 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Pollard v. Acer Group, 870 A.2d 429, 432 (R.I. 2005)).

2022Thus, we conclude that defendant waived her challenge to the facial validity of the search warrant. 3 See Bouffard, 945 A.2d at 312 (holding that the lack of prior challenge of a statutory scheme on constitutional grounds does not render an issue novel for the exception to the raise-or-waive rule); Pollard v. Acer Group, 870 A.2d 429 , 432 n.10 (R.I. 2005) (declining to apply the exception to the raise-or-waive rule to a belated constitutional challenge of a tax sale statute); Cronan ex rel.

2016The raise- or-waive rule requires that objections are to be raised at trial so that opposing counsel has “an opportunity to respond appropriately to claims raised.” State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 731 (R.I. 1987).

2001“An exception to the raise-or-waive rule is that this Court will review allegations of violations of basic constitutional rights but even then only in very narrow circumstances.” Id. at 1197 (citing State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 781 (R.I. 1987)).

2017See State v. Yon, 161 A.3d 1118, 1128 (R.I. 2017) (“The raise-or-waive rule ‘imposes upon litigants a duty to raise all their claims for relief in the trial court and properly articulate them to a judge for a ruling.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting D’Alessio v. State, 101 A.3d 1270, 1278 (R.I. 2014))); State v. Gomez, 848 A.2d 221, 237 (R.I. 2004) (“As established by this [C]ourt, an issue that has not been raised and articulated previously at trial is not properly preserved for appellate review.” (quoting State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 141 (R.I. 1991))). 11 Ill Motion for New Trial A Standard of

2016We have recognized but one exception to the raise-or-waive rule where “basic constitutional rights are concerned.” State v. Gomez, 848 A.2d 221, 237 (R.I. 2004) (quoting State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 141 (R.I. 1991)). “[T]o fall within this exception, the defendant must show: (1) *175 that the error complained of amounts to more than harmless error; (2) that a sufficient record exists to permit a determination of the issue; and (3) that ‘counsel’s failure to raise the issue [before trial] must be premised upon a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’

2025It is beyond question that “this Court staunchly adheres to the raise or waive rule.” State v. Barros, 148 A.3d 168, 174 (R.I. 2016) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I. 2011)).

2024See, e.g., In re Shy C., 126 A.3d 433 , 434 (R.I. 2015) (“This Court has long adhered to an important jurisprudential principle commonly referred to as ‘the raise or waive rule.’”); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Malinou, 101 A.3d 860, 865 (R.I. 2014) (“According to this Court’s well settled raise-or-waive rule, issues not properly presented before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”) (emphasis added); State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I. 2011) (“This Court staunchly adheres to the ‘raise or waive’ rule, which requires parties to raise an issue fir

2018See In re Shy C. , 126 A.3d 433 , 434, 435 (R.I. 2015) (noting that the raise-or-waive rule is a "long adhered to" and "important jurisprudential principle" providing that "an issue that has not been raised and articulated previously at trial is not properly preserved for appellate review") (quoting State v. Gomez , 848 A.2d 221 , 237 (R.I. 2004) ).

2017See State v. Yon, 161 A.3d 1118, 1128 (R.I. 2017) (“The raise-or-waive rule ‘imposes upon litigants a duty to raise all their claims for relief in the trial court and properly articulate them to a judge for a ruling.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting D’Alessio v. State, 101 A.3d 1270, 1278 (R.I. 2014))); State v. Gomez, 848 A.2d 221, 237 (R.I. 2004) (“As established by this [C]ourt, an issue that has not been raised and articulated previously at trial is not properly preserved for appellate review.” (quoting State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 141 (R.I. 1991))). 11 Ill Motion for New Trial A Standard of

2022Additionally, according to this Court’s longstanding raise-or-waive rule, “a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.” Cusick v. Cusick, 210 A.3d 1199, 1203 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Rohena v. City of Providence, 154 A.3d 935, 938 (R.I. 2017)).

2021This Court has further observed that “the raise-or- waive rule is a fundamental principle in this state that is ‘staunchly adhered to’ by this Court.” State v. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482 , 493 (R.I. 2020) (quoting Cusick v. Cusick, 210 A.3d 1199, 1203 (R.I. 2019)).

2022We have recognized a narrow exception to the raise-or-waive rule: - 15 - where the alleged error is “more than harmless,” State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305, 311-12 (R.I. 2008), and “an issue of constitutional dimension based on a novel rule of law is presented of which counsel could not reasonably have known during the course of trial.” State v. Gomes, 690 A.2d 310, 319 (R.I. 1997) (quoting State v. Leonardo, 677 A.2d 1336, 1337 (R.I. 1996)).

1998To preserve an issue for appeal to this Court, the appealing party generally must have made a “contemporaneous objection, as mandated by Super.R.Crim .P. 51.” 3 Although grounds for the admission of evidence not raised before the trial justice will not normally be considered on review by this Court, State v. Gomes, 690 A.2d 310, 319 (R.I.1997), we have recognized an exception to this raise-or-waive rule if “basic constitutional rights are concerned.” State v. Mastracchio, 672 A.2d 438, 446 (R.I.1996).

2026“This Court has ‘repeatedly indicated that it adheres to what is commonly called the raise or waive rule—i.e., we do not consider issues on appeal which were not raised and properly presented during proceedings in the court below.’” State v. White, 296 A.3d 692 , 702 (R.I. 2023) (quoting DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Company, 26 A.3d 585, 628 (R.I. 2011)).

2016We remain convinced that the raise-or-waive rule is “an important guarantor of fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.” DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Co., 26 A.3d 585 , 628 n.55 (R.I. 2011).

2026“It is beyond peradventure that ‘this Court staunchly adheres to the raise or waive rule.’” State v. Tavares, 312 A.3d 449 , 458 (R.I. 2024) (quoting State v. Barros, 148 A.3d 168, 174 (R.I. 2016)).

2025The plaintiffs denied that they waived an appeal of the merits of the Superior Court’s determination by stating “there was no decision on the merits.” (Emphasis omitted.) They contend that the Superior Court’s brief adoption of the persuasive determinations in Fire Fighters and LPF could not have been a merits adjudication because those courts applied different pleading standards. “[T]his Court staunchly adheres to the raise or waive rule.” State v. Mosley, 320 A.3d 942 , 974 (R.I. 2024) (quoting State v. Barros, 148 A.3d 168, 174 (R.I. 2016)).

2024See Federal National Mortgage Association v. Malinou, 101 A.3d 860, 865 (R.I. 2014) (“According to this Court’s well settled raise-or-waive rule, issues not properly presented before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”); see also Decathlon Investments v. Medeiros, 252 A.3d 268 , 270 (R.I. 2021).10 V Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the order of the Superior Court granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

2024See, e.g., In re Shy C., 126 A.3d 433 , 434 (R.I. 2015) (“This Court has long adhered to an important jurisprudential principle commonly referred to as ‘the raise or waive rule.’”); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Malinou, 101 A.3d 860, 865 (R.I. 2014) (“According to this Court’s well settled raise-or-waive rule, issues not properly presented before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”) (emphasis added); State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I. 2011) (“This Court staunchly adheres to the ‘raise or waive’ rule, which requires parties to raise an issue fir

2022We have recognized a narrow exception to the raise-or-waive rule: - 15 - where the alleged error is “more than harmless,” State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305, 311-12 (R.I. 2008), and “an issue of constitutional dimension based on a novel rule of law is presented of which counsel could not reasonably have known during the course of trial.” State v. Gomes, 690 A.2d 310, 319 (R.I. 1997) (quoting State v. Leonardo, 677 A.2d 1336, 1337 (R.I. 1996)).

2022Thus, we conclude that defendant waived her challenge to the facial validity of the search warrant. 3 See Bouffard, 945 A.2d at 312 (holding that the lack of prior challenge of a statutory scheme on constitutional grounds does not render an issue novel for the exception to the raise-or-waive rule); Pollard v. Acer Group, 870 A.2d 429 , 432 n.10 (R.I. 2005) (declining to apply the exception to the raise-or-waive rule to a belated constitutional challenge of a tax sale statute); Cronan ex rel.

2024We have recognized - 10 - that the raise-or-waive rule “should not ‘be dismissed as a pettifogging technicality or a trap for the indolent; the rule is founded upon important considerations of fairness, judicial economy, and practical wisdom.’” Id. at 175 (quoting National Association of Social Workers v. Harwood, 69 F.3d 622, 627 (1st Cir. 1995)).

2024This Court has recognized that the raise-or-waive rule “is founded upon important considerations of fairness, judicial economy, and practical wisdom.” Barros, 148 A.3d at 175 (quoting National Association of Social Workers, 69 F.3d at 627 ).

2024“We also recognize that there is a narrow exception to the raise-or-waive rule where the alleged error is more than harmless, and the exception implicates an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel at the time of trial.” Decathlon Investments v. Medeiros, 252 A.3d 268 , 270 (R.I. 2021) (quoting State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1240, 1246 (R.I. 2010)).

2021In addition, according to this Court’s long-standing, and staunchly adhered to, raise-or-waive rule, “a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on ‐5‐ appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.” Cusick v. Cusick, 210 A.3d 1199, 1203 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Rohena v. City of Providence, 154 A.3d 935, 938 (R.I. 2017)). “[T]here is a narrow exception to the raise-or-waive rule where the alleged error is more than harmless, and the exception implicates an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel

2019However, it is my definite belief that the raise or waive rule and especially the requirement that "an evidentiary objection must be sufficiently focused" are such important components of our jurisprudence that I feel obliged to clearly reiterate my conviction that the evidentiary objection at issue in this case was definitely not even remotely "sufficiently focused so as to call the trial justice's attention to the basis for said objection * * *." Diefenderfer , 970 A.2d at 30 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019In State v. Diefenderfer , 970 A.2d 12 (R.I. 2009), we explained as follows the rationale that underlies the raise or waive rule: "There is nothing Kafkaesque or arbitrary about the requirement that evidentiary objections be sufficiently focused and specific.

2025See Ciresi, 45 A.3d at 1212 .

2014However, “[i]t is well established that ‘the raise-or-waive rule precludes a litigant from arguing an issue on appeal that has not been articulated at trial.’ ” Ciresi, 45 A.3d at 1212 (quoting State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1240, 1245 (R.I.2010)).

2023“It is well settled that the raise-or-waive rule precludes us from considering at the appellate level issues not properly presented before the trial court.” State v. Andrade, 209 A.3d 1185, 1194 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Cahill, 196 A.3d 744, 753 (R.I. 2018)).

2021“It is well settled that the raise-or-waive rule precludes us from considering at the appellate level issues not properly presented before the trial court.” State v. Andrade, 209 A.3d 1185, 1194 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Cahill, 196 A.3d 744, 753 (R.I. 2018)). 2 Thomas During the defense’s cross-examination of Thomas, defendant introduced a photograph of Renee Rogers, the mother of Thomas’s child.

2025See State v. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482 , 495 (R.I. 2020) (“[W]e require a specific objection so that the allegation of error can be brought to the attention of the trial justice, who will then have an opportunity to rule on it.”) (quoting Pona II, 66 A.3d at 468 ).

2020State v. Pona, 66 A.3d 454, 468 (R.I. 2013) (“‘According to our well settled raise or waive rule, if an issue was not preserved by specific objection at trial, then it may not be considered on appeal.’ * * * We require a specific objection so that the allegation of error can be brought to the attention of the trial justice, who will then have an opportunity to rule on it.”) (second emphasis added) (quoting State v. McManus, 990 A.2d 1229, 1237 (R.I. 2010)).

2023“It is well settled that the raise-or-waive rule precludes us from considering at the appellate level issues not properly presented before the trial court.” State v. Andrade, 209 A.3d 1185, 1194 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Cahill, 196 A.3d 744, 753 (R.I. 2018)).

2021“It is well settled that the raise-or-waive rule precludes us from considering at the appellate level issues not properly presented before the trial court.” State v. Andrade, 209 A.3d 1185, 1194 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Cahill, 196 A.3d 744, 753 (R.I. 2018)). 2 Thomas During the defense’s cross-examination of Thomas, defendant introduced a photograph of Renee Rogers, the mother of Thomas’s child.

2022State v. Cronan, 774 A.2d 866, 878 (R.I. 2001) (refusing to apply the exception to the raise-or-waive rule to a belated constitutional challenge to private prosecutions); In re David G., 741 3 Police officers, reviewing magistrates, and members of the bar must remain vigilant in safeguarding individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.

2005State v. Cronan, 774 A.2d 866, 878 (R.I.2001) (setting out the three-part test governing the exception to the raise-or-waive rule).

2022Additionally, according to this Court’s longstanding raise-or-waive rule, “a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.” Cusick v. Cusick, 210 A.3d 1199, 1203 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Rohena v. City of Providence, 154 A.3d 935, 938 (R.I. 2017)).

2021In addition, according to this Court’s long-standing, and staunchly adhered to, raise-or-waive rule, “a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on ‐5‐ appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.” Cusick v. Cusick, 210 A.3d 1199, 1203 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Rohena v. City of Providence, 154 A.3d 935, 938 (R.I. 2017)). “[T]here is a narrow exception to the raise-or-waive rule where the alleged error is more than harmless, and the exception implicates an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel

2021III The Raise-or-Waive Rule “It is well settled that, ‘in accordance with this Court’s longstanding raise-or-waive rule, if an issue was not properly asserted, and thereby preserved, in the lower tribunals, this Court will not consider the issue on appeal.’” Heneault, 213 A.3d at 416 (quoting Adams v. Santander Bank, N.A., 183 A.3d 544, 548 (R.I. 2018)).

2019“In accordance with this Court’s longstanding raise-or- waive rule, if an issue was not properly asserted, and thereby preserved, in the lower tribunals, this Court will not consider the issue on appeal.” Trojan v. Trojan, 208 A.3d 221, 231 (R.I. 2019) (brackets omitted) (quoting Adams v. Santander Bank, N.A., 183 A.3d 544, 548 (R.I. 2018)).

2004The defendant is correct in saying that this Court has recognized an exception to the raise or waive rule, which “applies only when the defendant’s basic constitutional rights are at issue.” State v. Estrada, 537 A.2d 983, 987 (R.I.1988).

1999To fall within this exception, however, “the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be ‘sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,’ and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon ‘a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’ ” State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 142 (R.I.1991) (quoting State v. Estrada, 537 A.2d 983, 987 (R.I.1988)).

2018"The raise-or-waive rule 'imposes upon litigants a duty to raise all their claims for relief in the trial court and properly articulate them to a judge for a ruling.' " Id. (quoting D'Alessio v. State , 101 A.3d 1270 , 1278 (R.I. 2014) ).

2017See State v. Yon, 161 A.3d 1118, 1128 (R.I. 2017) (“The raise-or-waive rule ‘imposes upon litigants a duty to raise all their claims for relief in the trial court and properly articulate them to a judge for a ruling.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting D’Alessio v. State, 101 A.3d 1270, 1278 (R.I. 2014))); State v. Gomez, 848 A.2d 221, 237 (R.I. 2004) (“As established by this [C]ourt, an issue that has not been raised and articulated previously at trial is not properly preserved for appellate review.” (quoting State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 141 (R.I. 1991))). 11 Ill Motion for New Trial A Standard of

2014This Court’s settled raise or waive rule “requires parties to raise an issue first in the trial court before raising it on appeal.” See, e.g., State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I.2011) (“This Court staunchly adheres to the ‘raise or waive’ rule, which requires parties to raise an issue first in the trial court before raising it on appeal.”); State v. Hak, 963 A.2d 921, 927 (R.I.2009) (“This Court’s familiar raise-or-waive rule precludes us from considering issues at the appellate level that were not properly presented before the trial court.”); Bouchard v. Clark, 581 A.2d 715, 716 (R.I.

2001“An exception to the raise-or-waive rule is that this Court will review allegations of violations of basic constitutional rights but even then only in very narrow circumstances.” Id. at 1197 (citing State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 781 (R.I. 1987)).