untimely assertion defense in Rhode Island

2024The defendant simply moved for a judgment of acquittal on Count Five, and he summarily objected to the trial justice charging on both Count Two and Count Five.17 Additionally, it is our opinion that the present case does not fall within one of the “limited circumstances” that would allow this Court to review this particular contention of double jeopardy because defendant has not successfully borne the burden of “show[ing] cause why relief should be granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” Lee, 502 A.2d at 334 ; see Segrain, 252 A.3d at 1269 (stating that the case did not

2024In those limited circumstances, “the burden is on a defendant to show cause why relief should be granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” State v. Lee, 502 A.2d 332, 334 (R.I. 1985); see Segrain, 252 A.3d at 1269.

1995To come within these narrow circumstances, it is incumbent upon a defendant “to show cause why relief should be granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” Lee, 502 A.2d at 334 (citing Sharbuno, 120 R.I. at 722 , 390 A.2d at 920 ).

1995To come within these narrow circumstances, it is incumbent upon a defendant “to show cause why relief should be granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” Lee, 502 A.2d at 334 (citing Sharbuno, 120 R.I. at 722 , 390 A.2d at 920 ).

2024The defendant simply moved for a judgment of acquittal on Count Five, and he summarily objected to the trial justice charging on both Count Two and Count Five.17 Additionally, it is our opinion that the present case does not fall within one of the “limited circumstances” that would allow this Court to review this particular contention of double jeopardy because defendant has not successfully borne the burden of “show[ing] cause why relief should be granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” Lee, 502 A.2d at 334 ; see Segrain, 252 A.3d at 1269 (stating that the case did not

2024In those limited circumstances, “the burden is on a defendant to show cause why relief should be granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” State v. Lee, 502 A.2d 332, 334 (R.I. 1985); see Segrain, 252 A.3d at 1269.

2021Thomas, 654 A.2d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2008Furthermore, “[t]he determination whether to relieve defendant from the waiver is vested in the sound discretion of the trial justice.” Id.

2008Although “a defendant can be granted relief from the harsh effects of the waiver imposed by Rule 12(b)(2),” this Court has declared that “the burden is on a defendant to show cause why relief should be granted notwithstanding the untimely assertion of the defense.” State v. Roberts, 420 A.2d 837, 840 (R.I.1980).

1985See also State v. Reis, — R.I. —, —, 430 A.2d 749, 755 (1981) (failure to advance double-jeopardy defense before trial constitutes a waiver of that issue under Rule 12(b)(2)).