12 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2011There, this Court observed: “the totality-of-the-circumstances test requires consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of a juvenile suspect, including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence, his or her capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiver, and the presence of a parent, a guardian, or an interested adult.” Id. (quoting State v. Campbell 691 A.2d 564, 567 (R.I.1997)). 2003We previously have observed that: “the totality-of-the-circumstances test requires consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of a juvenile suspect, including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence, his or her capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiver, and the presence of a parent, a guardian, or an interested adult.” Id. (quoting Camp bell, 691 A.2d at 567 ). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Cruzgreen2 sentences2019"The sole purpose in requiring the approval of the court and mandating that the waiver be made in open court is to assure that the defendant who waives a jury trial does so intelligently and with full knowledge of the consequences of his waiver." State v. Cruz , 517 A.2d 237 , 243 (R.I. 1986). 2019“The sole purpose in requiring the approval of the court and mandating that the waiver be made in open court is to assure that the defendant who waives a jury trial does so intelligently and with full knowledge of the consequences of his waiver.” State v. Cruz, 517 A.2d 237, 243 (R.I. 1986). case at bar signed a waiver form, and the form was made part of the record. | 1 | 2 |
McKaskle v. Wigginsgreen1 sentence2021The Supreme Court has further stated that “[t]he pro se defendant must be allowed to control the organization and content of his own defense, to make motions, to argue points of law, to participate in voir dire, to question witnesses, and to address the court and the jury at appropriate points in the trial.” McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 174 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Asermely v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE INS. CO.green1 sentence2008See id. | 1 | 1 |
Fare v. Michael C.green2 sentences2003See also Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2572 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197, 212 (1979). 2003See also Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2572 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197, 212 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences1986See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). 1986See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 291506green1 sentence1976See, e.g., Turk v. United States, 429 F.2d 1327, 1329 (8th Cir. 1970); American Chem. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2021“The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.” Id. at 819-20 . 2011The right to defend oneself "is given directly [by the Sixth Amendment] to the accused; for it is he [or she] who suffers the consequences if the defense fails." Id. at 820 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . | 2 | 2011–2021 |
In Re Kean
green
2 sentences1999We have observed that “the totality-of-the-circumstances test requires consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of a juvenile suspect, including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence, his or her capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiver, and the presence of a parent, a guardian, or an interested adult.” Campbell, 691 A.2d at 567 (citing In re Kean, 520 A.2d at 1274-75 ). 1997As we have observed, “[T]he totality-of-the-circumstances test requires consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of a juvenile suspect, including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence, his or her capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiver, and the presence of a parent, a guardian, or an interested adult.” Campbell, 691 A.2d at 567 (citing In re Kean, 520 A.2d at 1274-75 ). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
Armstrong v. Polaski
green
2 sentences2025This Court adopted a “broad brush approach” that “authorized the record to be supplemented by an additional transcript provided the party seeking relief has acted in good faith, and that to relieve him from the consequences of his error will not result in a disservice to the interests of justice.” Id. at 663 , 360 A.2d at 559 . 2025This Court adopted a “broad brush approach” that “authorized the record to be supplemented by an additional transcript provided the party seeking relief has acted in good faith, and that to relieve him from the consequences of his error will not result in a disservice to the interests of justice.” Id. at 663 , 360 A.2d at 559 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Kryla
green
1 sentence2011There, this Court observed: “the totality-of-the-circumstances test requires consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of a juvenile suspect, including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence, his or her capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiver, and the presence of a parent, a guardian, or an interested adult.” Id. (quoting State v. Campbell 691 A.2d 564, 567 (R.I.1997)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.