6 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2001 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jorngreen2 sentences1992See also United States v. Jom, 400 U.S. 470 , 91 S.Ct. 547 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971). *1265 However, this stringent rule is subject to the exception that a mistrial will not bar a retrial in the event that the mistrial is granted at the request of the defendant. 1992See also United States v. Jom, 400 U.S. 470 , 91 S.Ct. 547 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971). *1265 However, this stringent rule is subject to the exception that a mistrial will not bar a retrial in the event that the mistrial is granted at the request of the defendant. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Martellinigreen1 sentence2001Motion for Mistrial The defendant also contended that the trial justice's refusal to pass the case was reversible error. "[I]t is well-settled law that motions to pass a case and declare a mistrial are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial justice." State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084 , 1091 *979 (R.I.1996); State v. Martellini, 533 A.2d 527, 529 (R.I.1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tempestgreen2 sentences2001We accord the trial justice’s determination great deference because “he or she possesses ‘a “front-row seat” at the trial and can best determine the effect of the improvident remarks upon the jury.’” Figueroa, 673 A.2d at 1091 (quoting State v. Tempest, 651 A.2d 1198, 1207 (R.I.1995)). 2001We accord the trial justice's determination great deference because "he or she possesses `a "front-row seat" at the trial and can best determine the effect of the improvident remarks upon the jury.'" Figueroa, 673 A.2d at 1091 (quoting State v. Tempest, 651 A.2d 1198, 1207 (R.I.1995)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Figueroagreen2 sentences2001Motion for Mistrial The defendant also contended that the trial justice’s refusal to pass the case was reversible error. “[I]t is well-settled law that motions to pass a case and declare a mistrial are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial justice.” State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084, 1091 (R.I.1996); State v. Martellini, 538 A.2d 527 , 529 (R.I.1987). 2001Motion for Mistrial The defendant also contended that the trial justice's refusal to pass the case was reversible error. "[I]t is well-settled law that motions to pass a case and declare a mistrial are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial justice." State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084 , 1091 *979 (R.I.1996); State v. Martellini, 533 A.2d 527, 529 (R.I.1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen1 sentence2000See State v. Evans, 742 A.2d 715, 720 (R.I.1999) (admitting a .38-caliber revolver into evidence was not an abuse of discretion because the jury reasonably could infer that the gun was connected to the crime charged). *11 Motion for a Mistrial The defendant next argued that the trial justice erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after the trial justice commented on the redirect examination testimony of Chin. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John M. Arruda, United States of America v. Edward Ringlandgreen1 sentence1997Id.; cf. United States v. Arruda, 715 F.2d 671, 684 (1st Cir.1983) (no error in failing to grant a mistrial when violation of court order was neither in bad faith nor intentional). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences1993Our cases are based upon federal standards set forth in United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 , 91 S.Ct. 547 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) (plurality opinion), and further expounded in Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). 1993Our cases are based upon federal standards set forth in United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 , 91 S.Ct. 547 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) (plurality opinion), and further expounded in Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). | 2 | 1992–1993 |
State v. McDowell
green
1 sentence1996Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s argument that State v. McDowell, 620 A.2d 94 (R.I.1993), requires reversal of defendant’s convictions. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Torres
green
1 sentence1993Houle, now claims that this declaration of a mistrial was a violation of the principles of double jeopardy set forth in State v. Torres, 524 A.2d 1120 (R.I.1987). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. Dinitz
green
2 sentences1992Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 , 96 S.Ct. 1075 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). 1992Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 , 96 S.Ct. 1075 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.