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.
6 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Collazogreen2 sentences2018Discussion The defendant argues to this Court that the trial justice erred in refusing to pass the case because, even though her statement was stricken, the jury still heard Dr. Kissoon's statement "[t]hat [Megan's] disclosure was consistent with sexual abuse." A trial justice should pass the case if the challenged testimony inflames the passions of the jury and is "so flagrantly impermissible that even a precautionary instruction would have been insufficient to dispel the prejudice in the jurors' minds and to assure defendant a fair and impartial trial." State v. Ordway , 619 A.2d 819 , 826 ( 1994Usjt jj: “[Rjeversible error occurs if the allegedly improper comment was so flagrantly impermissible that even a precautionary instruction would have been insufficient to dispel the prejudice in the jurors’ minds and to assure defendant a fair and impartial trial.” Id. (quoting State v. Collazo, 446 A.2d 1006, 1010 (R.I.1982)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence2004In considering whether a challenged remark is prejudicial, the trial justice must determine whether the “ ‘improper comment was so flagrantly impermissible that even a precautionary instruction would have been insufficient to dispel the prejudice in the jurors’ minds and to assure defendant a fair and impartial trial.’” State v. Hernandez, 641 A.2d 62, 69 (R.I.1994). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ordway
green
2 sentences2018Discussion The defendant argues to this Court that the trial justice erred in refusing to pass the case because, even though her statement was stricken, the jury still heard Dr. Kissoon's statement "[t]hat [Megan's] disclosure was consistent with sexual abuse." A trial justice should pass the case if the challenged testimony inflames the passions of the jury and is "so flagrantly impermissible that even a precautionary instruction would have been insufficient to dispel the prejudice in the jurors' minds and to assure defendant a fair and impartial trial." State v. Ordway , 619 A.2d 819 , 826 ( 1994Usjt jj: “[Rjeversible error occurs if the allegedly improper comment was so flagrantly impermissible that even a precautionary instruction would have been insufficient to dispel the prejudice in the jurors’ minds and to assure defendant a fair and impartial trial.” Id. (quoting State v. Collazo, 446 A.2d 1006, 1010 (R.I.1982)). | 2 | 1994–2018 |
State v. Bowden
green
2 sentences1982State v. Bowden, 113 R.I. 649 , 324 A.2d 631 (1974); State v. Kozukonis, 100 R.I. 298 , 214 A.2d 893 (1965); State v. Werner, and State v. Peters, both supra. We first note that there was no evidence that the prosecutor made the challenged remarks in bad faith. 1982State v. Bowden, 113 R.I. 649 , 324 A.2d 631 (1974); State v. Kozukonis, 100 R.I. 298 , 214 A.2d 893 (1965); State v. Werner, and State v. Peters, both supra. We first note that there was no evidence that the prosecutor made the challenged remarks in bad faith. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Kozukonis
green
2 sentences1982State v. Bowden, 113 R.I. 649 , 324 A.2d 631 (1974); State v. Kozukonis, 100 R.I. 298 , 214 A.2d 893 (1965); State v. Werner, and State v. Peters, both supra. We first note that there was no evidence that the prosecutor made the challenged remarks in bad faith. 1982State v. Bowden, 113 R.I. 649 , 324 A.2d 631 (1974); State v. Kozukonis, 100 R.I. 298 , 214 A.2d 893 (1965); State v. Werner, and State v. Peters, both supra. We first note that there was no evidence that the prosecutor made the challenged remarks in bad faith. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Werner
green
1 sentence1971I. 314, 318, 140 A.2d 502, 504 ; another would be if the prosecutor had exceeded propriety in so flagrant a manner that even a precautionary instruction would not have sufficed to insure defeixdant a fair and impartial trial. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.