Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2022 1 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. Grayhurstgreen2 sentences2022Standard of Review “It is well settled that this Court ‘will reverse a trial justice’s findings on a motion to suppress only if (1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.’” State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I. 2004) (quoting State v. Garcia, 743 A.2d 1038, 1044 (R.I. 2000)). 2016As such, we will reverse a trial justice’s findings on a motion to suppress only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2022Standard of Review “It is well settled that this Court ‘will reverse a trial justice’s findings on a motion to suppress only if (1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.’” State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I. 2004) (quoting State v. Garcia, 743 A.2d 1038, 1044 (R.I. 2000)). 2007This Court will reverse a trial justice’s determination on a motion to suppress only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Garcia, 743 A.2d 1038, 1044 (R.I.2000); see also Briggs, 756 A.2d at 736 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Briggsgreen2 sentences2009Standard of Review In reviewing a motion to suppress a statement, this Court will reverse a trial justice’s determination only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Garcia, 748 A.2d 1038, 1044 (R.I.2000); see also State v. Vieira, 918 A.2d 1015 , 1020 (R.I.2007) (stating that, after conducting a deferential review of the findings of historical fact relative to the voluntariness of t 2007This Court will reverse a trial justice’s determination on a motion to suppress only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Garcia, 743 A.2d 1038, 1044 (R.I.2000); see also Briggs, 756 A.2d at 736 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Humphreygreen2 sentences2000Next, we apply those historical facts and review the trial justice’s determination as to the voluntariness of the challenged confession de novo.” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1273 (R.I.1998) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Campbell, 691 A.2d 564, 569 (R.I.1997)). 7 In doing so, “we accord deference to the trial court’s factual findings concerning the historical events pertaining to the confession by using a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 762 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Carter, 2000Next, we apply those historical facts and review the trial justice’s determination as to the voluntariness of the challenged confession de novo.” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1273 (R.I.1998) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Campbell, 691 A.2d 564, 569 (R.I.1997)). 7 In doing so, “we accord deference to the trial court’s factual findings concerning the historical events pertaining to the confession by using a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 762 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Carter, | 3 | 3 |
Ornelas v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2000Next, we apply those historical facts and review the trial justice’s determination as to the voluntariness of the challenged confession de novo.” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1273 (R.I.1998) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Campbell, 691 A.2d 564, 569 (R.I.1997)). 7 In doing so, “we accord deference to the trial court’s factual findings concerning the historical events pertaining to the confession by using a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 762 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Carter, 2000Next, we apply those historical facts and review the trial justice’s determination as to the voluntariness of the challenged confession de novo.” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1273 (R.I.1998) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Campbell, 691 A.2d 564, 569 (R.I.1997)). 7 In doing so, “we accord deference to the trial court’s factual findings concerning the historical events pertaining to the confession by using a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 762 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Carter, | 2 | 3 |
State v. Amadogreen2 sentences2013It has become a fundamental principle of American criminal law that, “prior to custodial interrogation a suspect must receive explicit warnings concerning his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel.” See State v. Amado, 424 A.2d 1057, 1061 (R.I.1981) (discussing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). 2013Accordingly, we will reverse a trial justice’s findings on a motion to suppress only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Collodo, 661 A.2d 62, 64 (R.I.1995). 2 Analysis of the Miranda Contention Almost half a century ago, the United States Supreme Court held that, “prior to custodial inte | 2 | 2 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, we will reverse a trial justice’s findings on a motion to suppress only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Collodo, 661 A.2d 62, 64 (R.I.1995). 2 Analysis of the Miranda Contention Almost half a century ago, the United States Supreme Court held that, “prior to custodial inte 2013Accordingly, we will reverse a trial justice’s findings on a motion to suppress only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Collodo, 661 A.2d 62, 64 (R.I.1995). 2 Analysis of the Miranda Contention Almost half a century ago, the United States Supreme Court held that, “prior to custodial inte | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lindegreen1 sentence2022“With respect to questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact involving constitutional issues, however, this Court engages in a de novo review[.]” State v. Jimenez, 33 A.3d 724, 732 (R.I. 2011) (quoting State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115, 1124 (R.I. 2005)); see State v. Parra, 941 A.2d 799, 803 (R.I. 2007) (“We * * * conduct a de -7- novo review of the record and independently consider whether a defendant’s rights have been violated.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parragreen1 sentence2022“With respect to questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact involving constitutional issues, however, this Court engages in a de novo review[.]” State v. Jimenez, 33 A.3d 724, 732 (R.I. 2011) (quoting State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115, 1124 (R.I. 2005)); see State v. Parra, 941 A.2d 799, 803 (R.I. 2007) (“We * * * conduct a de -7- novo review of the record and independently consider whether a defendant’s rights have been violated.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jimenezgreen1 sentence2022“With respect to questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact involving constitutional issues, however, this Court engages in a de novo review[.]” State v. Jimenez, 33 A.3d 724, 732 (R.I. 2011) (quoting State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115, 1124 (R.I. 2005)); see State v. Parra, 941 A.2d 799, 803 (R.I. 2007) (“We * * * conduct a de -7- novo review of the record and independently consider whether a defendant’s rights have been violated.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Collodogreen1 sentence2013Accordingly, we will reverse a trial justice’s findings on a motion to suppress only if “(1) his or her findings concerning the challenged statements reveal clear error, and (2) our independent review of the conclusions drawn from the historical facts establishes that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were denied.” State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Collodo, 661 A.2d 62, 64 (R.I.1995). 2 Analysis of the Miranda Contention Almost half a century ago, the United States Supreme Court held that, “prior to custodial inte | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marinigreen1 sentence2013The prosecution must show a “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights * * * before comments made by a defendant during custodial interrogation can be admitted into evidence.” State v. Marini, 638 A.2d 507, 511 (R.I.1994) (emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Batongreen1 sentence2000“A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the basis of the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Humphrey, 715 A.2d at 1273 (quoting State v. Baton, 488 A.2d 696, 701 (R.I.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brouillardgreen1 sentence2000Next, we apply those historical facts and review the trial justice’s determination as to the voluntariness of the challenged confession de novo.” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1273 (R.I.1998) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Campbell, 691 A.2d 564, 569 (R.I.1997)). 7 In doing so, “we accord deference to the trial court’s factual findings concerning the historical events pertaining to the confession by using a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 762 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Carter, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2000Next, we apply those historical facts and review the trial justice’s determination as to the voluntariness of the challenged confession de novo.” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1273 (R.I.1998) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Campbell, 691 A.2d 564, 569 (R.I.1997)). 7 In doing so, “we accord deference to the trial court’s factual findings concerning the historical events pertaining to the confession by using a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 762 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Carter, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2000Next, we apply those historical facts and review the trial justice’s determination as to the voluntariness of the challenged confession de novo.” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1273 (R.I.1998) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Campbell, 691 A.2d 564, 569 (R.I.1997)). 7 In doing so, “we accord deference to the trial court’s factual findings concerning the historical events pertaining to the confession by using a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review.” State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 762 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. Carter, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.